Member Info for Love_You

WTI Oil should reach $80 barrel by mid July (august at the latest) based on my technical analysis.

Any other views on a technical basis of where the oil price is heading?

Some of you might find this surprising but if WTI oil hits $80 then Brent should hit about $86 this summer - of course not all technical analysis comes true, but it's generally more reliable than fundamental analysis (maybe because a lot of oil production is state controlled and the actual level of production is a state secret because it would give other countries an economic advantage to reveal one's level of true oil production to them).

PS - what doe people think about the EIA figures - I mean we know they are littered with basic arithmetic mistakes/errors/miscalculations. However as a broad brush are they in any way reflective of the oil the US has in immediately accessible reserves - such as in onshore tanks or caves under the Texas coast?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcIkIz98zXU - Posen Discusses the Damage of Brexit to the British Economy

If this was 1974 Britain your would be predicting a pound crash. This remains you of just how unsustainable the current economy in the UK is.

Going down the Singapore economic model (City state alternative to an over-regulated Europe) has a dozen problems with it!

Yet they want a pre-Thatcher migration approach where each industry is tightly regulated regarding migrants - but at the same time expect to attract business to the UK as though we were the new Hong Kong/Singapore.

Hesus - what a mess.

Is there a better lifestyle to be had in Bulgaria: really beautiful weather, beautiful beaches, and quite a relaxed approach to the economy as long you go through local "fixers" and also bring large amounts of money with you.

I can see money flooding into Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Croatia rather than to the UK - because they have better countryside and better weather. If you were rich would you prefer to drive your Ferrari through the lovely countryside in Eastern Europe or try and get through a UK town without being snarled up in traffic and then what is there to do in the UK - in Bulgaria/Romania there is good skiing, great beaches, long-hot summers, and cheap wine/great homebrewed spirits.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcIkIz98zXU

If this was 1974 Britain your would be predicting a pound crash. This remains you of just how unsustainable the current economy in the UK is.

Going down the Singapore economic model (City state alternative to an over-regulated Europe) has a dozen problems with it!

Yet they want a pre-Thatcher migration approach where each industry is tightly regulated regarding migrants - but at the same time expect to attract business to the UK as though we were the new Hong Kong/Singapore.

Hesus - what a mess - who would hold pounds Stirling - better lifestyle to be had in Bulgaria really, beautiful weather, beautiful beaches, beautiful women, and quite a relaxed approach to the economy as long you you go through local "fixers". I can see money flooding into Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Croatia rather than to the UK

How much would you pay me to come and organise/train a crew of lads from your council estates to man an old rig brought from Nigeria on the cheap and to start drilling the wells - I would be cheaper than employing AOC I'm sure. Also it would be healthier for the lads from a council estate to be learning some skills and out in the beautiful irish sea manning an oil rig than sitting in front of the TV smoking weed and drinking.

Politicians deserve to have uprisings soon - they have no sense of what economic harm they are doing and how meaningless their focus on climate change is because the Chinese are going to keep using oil (whether it be Irish oil or from wherever they can strike deals for petro dollars) and the Chinese are also going to keep using coal - so flippin well answer me this you Greenpeace - how do you propose that stopping a tiny bit of oil being produced from Ireland is going to have any effect in the grand scheme of things when the Chinese have got millions of oil workers in Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, The South China Sea, Canada - and they are going to try and ramp up oil production until 2028 - not reduce it.

It would be best that if you know where the oil is then you are entitled to get it out of the ground - this would mean companies couldn't waste years just sitting on the oil which is desperately needed by the citizens of Ireland. i.e. if Providence weren't showing much interest in organising rigs to extract the oil then it would be legal for any other company to move a rig to the site and to start extracting the oil - I bet Providence would soon get a move on and get a few rigs to the site before all the oil was in the tankers of another company and fuelling the Ferrari's of their very happy shareholders.

Best to join another system them - how about a system of governance whereby everything is legal except for physical violence and theft?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-47800638

You can't run an economy based mainly around betting shops, charity shops, coffee shops, takeaways and higher education.

When will the banks/government start spending money again on the important things like:
(1) Resurfacing the roads
(2) Decommissioning old nuclear and coal power plants and returning the sites back to their natural states
(3) Electrifying the railways and building new railways lines from Birmingam out to the coasts - Northumberland, Cumbria, Aberystwyth, Cornwall, Kent. This would also make HS2 make sense as what's the point of getting from London to Birmingham superfast if you can't then get to where you want to go at a good speed from Birmingham.
(4) Better quality food in the UK - locally produced and involving many more artisans rather than factories peddling palm oil and processed/vleached sugar.

(5) There needs to be some jobs for people who came from families working in heavy industry - surely more can be done to explore what natural resources may lie beneath the UK - for example a national hi-tech geological survey would be interesting - to see if perhaps there is copper on Anglesey that is commercially viable to mine - also people used to think there was a lot of gas offshore Blackpool - so perhaps this could be re-investigated as anything which shores up the UK's supply of natural gas I'm sure the government/citizens would welcome.

(6) And what about tourism - the pound is weak because we aren't very attractive for tourism as a country due to the mostly cloudy weather probably. However the UK could offer some great things to tourists - especially in the countryside which is unique in many aspects. Sooner or later people are going to get bored of coming to the UK just because it has far more history than the USA - the places with the longest history are actually Sumeria, Eqgypt and China. However there is a tranquility about a few days wandering through the English countryside which is quite unique because unlike the beautiful countryside in Ukraine, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, in England you are only ever an hour at most from a decent-sized city. Hence for people who are limited to time by a week or so (a typical vacation) then you don't have to choose between countryside or city in the UK - literally everyday you can spend your day in the countryise and your evening in the city - or you could spend a day in famous city (London, Manchester, Leeds) and then drive for an hour to stay in the wilds of nowhere in a B'n'B. I think this is a fairly unique aspect of England and one which could be promoted abroad a lot more to attract people with foreign currency to the UK.

Otherwise unless you attract foreign currency to the UK the value of the pound will just keep falling & falling in my opinion - as there is no solid base to the UK's economy since the coal mining/ship building industries were destroyed to be replaced by student loans & graduates to wor

Also, I think it won't work for much longer as there is no ordinary taxpayer - if you are a bailed-out banker you stand a fair chance of being seen as a social pariah - hence you can't go to the areas where you stole people's money and expect anything other than to feel pretty bad about yourself - what a life to have chosen - glad I chose a different path.

Hi Oogleflugal,

I'm also laughing now. The valuations dot com companies garnered in 2000/2001 were ridiculously high - many millionaires must have been made during this period despite presiding over a raft of companies that went bust in 2002-2004.

Thanks for bringing me one step closer to find inner peace and a happy life.

Hi LeeRex,

Indeed, I also feel that the economy is a snowball rolling down an infinite hill - people thought the snowball would grow forever at one time - then people started to get scared and started putting iron stakes in its way - and for sure this chipped pieces off and broke it up to some extent....

Yes the global economy seem extremely extremely extremely unlikely to ever balance - it will just be more and more money flowing into it like a river - and maybe at some point the whales who swallow the most will look about them and think, why I am even doing this anymore - there is a better way of life than this.

I don't think bank shares become worthless under Corbyn - he might try and persuade the BoE to raise rates to a middle-of-the-road 3.5% but that would be good for banks.

Also he would wish to set up a state-controlled investment bank to invest in infrastructure, youth employment projects, and with the aim of making the UK more self-sufficient in food.

However imagine this new bank had an initial capital of £35 Billion and a loan ratio of 10-1, giving £350 million of new capital with which to fund its projects in accordance with the government's strategic aims.

A new £350 million going into the UK economy would be less than the £425 million the Bank of England printed in fresh money from 2008-2016 - yet they also lowered interest rates which probably increased the stimulus this new money provided by a factor of ten (at least that's what financial markets would of assumed at the time). Hence that's why so many share prices have fallen from 2011 to 2019 - because the BoE made such drastic easing that financial markets reacted far too positively in terms of share prices - then greed and corruption means a lot of the new money was never earned by the companies in the economy - and investors have had years of earnings downgrades and share price falls which has made those who have suffered like myself pretty grumpy - and pretty annoyed that policymakers initiated a policy which they would of known in advance would wildly distort equity prices in crazy ways.

Also, retuning to a state-controlled UK investment bank to invest only in projects within the UK, then more money going into the UK economy would be good for banks, it's never a bad thing for financiers to be working in an economy with more spare money - a higher money supply in circulation .

Lastly if people keep fleeing the UK and taking money abroad then if we have capital controls in the UK you only have yourselves to blame, that is policymakers only have themselves to blame - they initiated a series of wild policy moves from 2007-2009 and did many things without wider consultation - no you are seeing the consequences, foreign investment is shutting up shop and leaving - probably because the UK is an economic basket case with people like Carnage and his foolish idea to lower interest rates to 0.5% and leave them there for a decade.

I would say Corbyn could well be good for banks, not bad.

I don't think bank shares become worthless under Corbyn - he might try and persuade the BoE to raise rates to a middle-of-the-road 3.5% but that would be good for banks.

Also he would wish to set up a state controlled investment bank to invest in infrastructure and youth employment projects and with the aim of amking the UK more self-sufficient in food.

However imagine this new banks had an initial capital of £35 Billion and a loan ration of 10-1, giving £350 million of new capital with which to fund its projects in accordance with the statregic aims of the government/government policy.

a new £350 million would be less than the £425 the Bank of England printed in fresh money from 2008-2016.

Also more money going into the eocnomy would be good for banks, it's never a bad thing for financiers to be working in an economy with more spare money - a higher money supply in circulation .

I would say Corbyn could well be good for banks, not bad.

The more I see, reflect about, the capitalist system the more sympathy I have for some alternative system being developed - because when the market starts valuing companies at below cash (even when they have cash and some other assets that would be useful to someone) then one knows the system is not functioning as it should according to the theory of investors/trading behaving rationally.

I mean so many random things have happened, such as in 2008 the Bank-of-England putting interest rates from 5.5% to 0.5% within the space of a few months and then announcing massive quantitative easing (money printing).

If people were rational then these sudden moves to extreme levels (0.5% interest rates are pretty much the lowest in the history of the financial system going back hundreds of years) by policymakers shouldn't be necessary.

I'm not sure that policymakers can congratulate themselves about what they have achieved since 2007 - what was the point of suddenly dropping interest rates lower than ever before and then keeping them virtually at zero for ten years. Whomever knew of this policy in advance (in the months before it was announced to markets) could have made a fortune - so what were the intentions behind it - was it to aid the corrupt? Was it just because they couldn't care less anymore? Was it an ego thing - to prove to the market that the Bank-of-England could be extreme in its behaviour and yet remain unchallenged for ten years?

I just don't get what was the thinking behind these extreme moves by policymakers - was it just to make the citizens think that the Bank-of-England was as corrupt and fraudulent as some of the worst Roman Caesars?

Clearly such an extremem move in interest rates was going to create massive winners-and-losers - because no rational econometric model could have forecast/predicted such an unprecendented event. So was that the point - to randomly cause some investors to get richer faster than they ever dreamed possible, whilst to bankrupt others relatively quickly who had taken on relatively moderate levels of risk?

Just what was the thinking behind policymakers being so extreme?

The more I see, reflect about, the capitalist system the more sympathy I have for some alternative system being developed - because when the market starts valuing companies at below cash (even when they have cash and some other assets that would be useful to someone) then one knows the system is not functioning as it should according to the theory of investors/trading behaving rationally.

I mean so many random things have happened, such as in 2008 the Bank-of-England putting interest rates from 5.5% to 0.5% within the space of a few months and then announcing massive quantitative easing (money printing).

If people were rational then these sudden moves to extreme levels (0.5% interest rates are pretty much the lowest in the history of the financial system going back hundreds of years) by policymakers shouldn't be necessary.

I'm not sure that policymakers can congratulate themselves about what they have achieved since 2007 - what was the point of suddenly dropping interest rates lower than ever before and then keeping them virtually at zero for ten years. Whomever knew of this policy in advance (in the months before it was announced to markets) could have made a fortune - so what were the intentions behind it - was it to aid the corrupt? Was it just because they couldn't care less anymore? Was it an ego thing - to prove to the market that the Bank-of-England could be extreme in its behaviour and yet remain unchallenged for ten years?

I just don't get what was the thinking behind these extreme moves by policymakers - was it just to make the citizens think that the Bank-of-England was as corrupt and fraudulent as some of the worst Roman Caesars?

Clearly such an extreme move in interest rates was going to create massive winners-and-losers - because no rational econometric model could have forecast/predicted such an unprecedented event. So was that the point - to randomly cause some investors to get richer faster than they ever dreamed possible, whilst to bankrupt others relatively quickly who had taken relatively moderate levels of risk?

Just what was the thinking behind policymakers being so extreme?

The more I see, reflect about, the capitalist system the more sympathy I have for some alternative system being developed - because when the market starts valuing companies at below cash (even when they have cash and some other assets that would be useful to someone) then one knows the system is not functioning as it should according to the theory of investors/trading behaving rationally.

I mean so many random things have happened, such as in 2008 the Bank-of-England putting interest rates from 5.5% to 0.5% within the space of a few months and then announcing massive quantitative easing (money printing).

If people were rational then these sudden moves to extreme levels (0.5% interest rates are pretty much the lowest in the history of the financial system going back hundreds of years) by policymakers shouldn't be necessary.

I'm not sure that policymakers can congratulate themselves about what they have achieved since 2007 - what was the point of suddenly dropping interest rates lower than ever before and then keeping them virtually at zero for ten years. Whomever knew of this policy in advance (in the months before it was announced to markets) could have made a fortune - so what were the intentions behind it - was it to aid the corrupt? Was it just because they couldn't care less anymore? Was it an ego thing - to prove to the market that the Bank-of-England could be extreme in its behaviour and yet remain unchallenged for ten years?

I just don't get what was the thinking behind these extreme moves by policymakers - was it just to make the citizens think that the Bank-of-England was as corrupt and fraudulent as some of the worst Roman Caesars?

Clearly such an extremem move in interest rates was going to create massive winners-and-losers - because no rational econometric model could have forecast/predicted such an unprecendented event. So was that the point - to randomly cause some investors to get richer faster than they ever dreamed possible, whilst to bankrupt others relatively quickly who had taken relatively moderate levels of risk?

Just what was the thinking behind policymakers being so extreme?

The more I see, reflect about, the capitalist system the more sympathy I have for some alternative system being developed - because when the market starts valuing companies at below cash (even when they have cash and some other assets that would be useful to someone) then one knows the system is not functioning as it should according to the theory of investors/trading behaving rationally.

I mean so many random things have happened, such as in 2008 the Bank-of-England putting interest rates from 5.5% to 0.5% within the space of a few months and then announcing massive quantitative easing (money printing).

If people were rational then these sudden moves to extreme levels (0.5% interest rates are pretty much the lowest in the history of the financial system going back hundreds of years) by policymakers shouldn't be necessary.

I'm not sure that policymakers can congratulate themselves about what they have achieved since 2007 - what was the point of suddenly dropping interest rates lower than ever before and then keeping them virtually at zero for ten years. Anyone who knew of this policy in advance could have made a fortune - so what were the intentions behind it - was it to aid the corrupt? Was it just because they couldn't care less anymore? Was it an ego thing - to prove to the market that the Bank-of-England could be extreme in its behaviour and yet remain unchallenged for ten years?

I just don't get what was the thinking behind these extreme moves by policymakers - was it just to make the citizens think that the Bank-of-England was as corrupt and fraudulent as some of the worst Roman Caesars?

Clearly such an extremem move in interest rates was going to create massive winners-and-losers - because no rational econometric model could have forecast/predicted such an unprecendented event. So was that the point - to randomly cause some investors to get richer faster than they ever dreamed possible, whilst to bankrupt others relatively quickly who had taken relatively moderate levels of risk?

Just what was the thinking behind policymakers being so extreme?

Oil and gas production in the Permian Basin has been growing so fast in recent years that it has overwhelmed the region's infrastructure. That has midstream companies racing to build new pipelines as quickly as they can.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/permian-basin-pipeline-building-boom-220400514.html

Sounds good for BP as they bought the Permian shale assets from BHP Billiton for $10,000,000,000 last year.

But surely the UK economy is more relevant to the Lloyds' share price than Brexit?

And I think what's been reported about the UK housing crisis is only the tip of the ice-berg. In my own area I see that housing problems, and poverty, have led to local shop closures and businesses closing down.

One issue affects other issues - if people aren't housed decently, and there isn't a thriving local community - a good mix of employers (not just betting shops, takeaways and charity shops) - then it all contributes to a negative society which will eventually impact the general UK economy negatively.

"In Harlow, the business model works for these landlords. But they shouldn't be here - they should be back with the communities they have come from and where the services are."

He said many families lived in "complete isolation".

"The problem is the location and it is completely inappropriate for families to live in an industrial setting.

"There are no facilities for the children to play, to meet other children and to have any sort of child's life at all."

So frustrated by lack of financial knowledge on here.

You do all realise that the majors are just as indebted as premier oil (some of them more so) on the basis of net assets/net debt.

Also if the majors were always making money how do you explain that according to their published financial statements they were all in net debt to the tune of over $40,000,000,000 - in the case of Petrobras their net debt is over $80,000,000,000.

So you see the oil majors don't make money without increasing their debts - their debts have been increasing ever since governments allowed their own debt-to-gdp ratios to increase post the 2008 global financial crisis.

However 2008 wasn't really a crisis that necessarily needed governments just to bail everyone out - all that this approach has done is to send governments' debt-to-gdp ratios much higher - and allowed the oil majors to take on more debt because the FED and Bank-of-England printed $4,500,000,000,000 in new money. So this allowed oil majors to borrow more money at record low interest rates of 0.5%, and to increase their net debt levels.

However, if you don't believe me, go and check the published financial accounts of Exxon, Chevron, BP, Petrobras and Shell. But I can assure you that they are all in net debt to at least the tune of $42 Billion each. In fact most of them have significantly higher net debt. And their net debts being defined as follows: (borrowings + commercial liabilities) minus (current cash + what's owed to them by other companies).

The whole financial system has caused a social disaster because of the stupid way that bailing out the bankers in 2008 made them think that they were more powerful than governments and that money was a higher force than ethics/ethical behaviour.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-47720887

So frustrated by lack of financial knowledge on here.

You do all realise that the majors' are just as indebted as premier (some of them more so) on the basis of net assets/net debt.

Also if the majors were always making money how do you explain that according to their published financial statements they were all in net debt to the tune of over $40,000,000,000 - in the case of Petrobras their net debt is over $80,000,000,000.

So you see the oil majors don't make money without increasing their debts - their debts have been increasing ever since governments allowed their debt-to-gdp ratios to increase post the 2008 global financial crisis. However it wasn't really a crisis that necessarily nearly governments just to bail everyone out - all this has done is send governments debt-to-gdp ratios much higher - and at the same time oil majors have taken on more debt because the FED and Bank-of-England printed $4,400,000,000,000 in new money in response to 2008. Also they allowed companies to borrow this money at record low interest rates of 0.5% - so that's where the money came from to allow the oil majors to increase their debts post 2008.

But don't delude yourself - go and check their published financial accounts - Exxon, Chevron, BP, Petrobras and Shell are all in net debt to at least the tune of $42 Billion - most of them have significantly higher net debt - net debt being taken as the sum of their borrowings and commercial liabilities minus their cash and what;s owed to them by other companies they deal with.