Member Info for Love_You

Thank you Sailplane - I think that I think somewhat similarly to you about life.

They never really did teach people anything useful at school - not even to learn how to think for yourself in order that you get to keep more than a tiny fraction of what your labour/ideas/work produces.

But once you've learned to think for yourself it feels very hard to go back to working so that out of every hundred your produce you get to keep 1 for yourself whilst another grotesque self-interested, greedy, human being takes 5 for themselves before passing the other 94 on to their "investors".

Also politicians are just using energy companies as an easy target to bash to try and win voter support regarding pricing/the economy - but sooner or later, given the success they've had bashing energy companies, they will probably turn to bashing all utilities (telecoms, water, even 4G/5G) and also supermarkets. Any big business that could be nationalised is not safe if they are able to impose pricing caps and threaten shareholders with the prospect of a future nationalisation with no compensation - at the every least compensation should be paid to shareholders.

Personally I feel that many people would have no issue with the government taking over CNA, or National Grid, Railtrack, BT, SSE, or Tescos, etc - as long as they paid shareholders a fair price (say the average of the market share price over the past decade).

If government think that can run any of these companies better then by all means - pay shareholders the average of the share price over the past ten years - take these companies over - and let the civil service run them. Then in another ten years we can all judge whether the private sector or the government did a better job of running these companies during their respective decade at the helm.

What do other people think of my ideas above?

But just to be clear, neither do I think green taxes were a good idea - and if the regulator imposed these "green taxes" on energy companies then perhaps the regulator needs to be stripped back - and then the energy companies wouldn't need to pay people to do nothing but to "fight the regulator."

Of course green taxes are not green at all - windfarms entail huge amounts of steel, ships, and when built onshore often involve the cutting down of large areas of forest. They also require a lot of maintenance and might break down after 20-25 years - whereas more conventional gas-fired power stations would probably have a lifespan of at least 60 years.

Taverham,

I agree - it does all need stripping back - employing people to fight the regulator is just paying out good money for "non-jobs".

Hi Prof.Plum

Well, energy bills don't seem high enough to be generating even half the income which CNA shareholders expected 4 years ago - or else why is CNA's current share prices less than a third of the value it was back then?

Politicians are just using energy companies as an easy target to bash to try and win voter support regarding pricing/the economy - but sooner or later, given the success they've had bashing energy companies, they will probably turn to bashing all utilities (telecoms, water, even 4G/5G) and also supermarkets. Any big business that could be nationalised is not safe if they are able to impose pricing caps and threaten shareholders with the prospect of a future nationalisation with no compensation - at the every least compensation should be paid to shareholders.

Personally I feel that many people would have no issue with the government taking over CNA, or National Grid, Railtrack, BT, SSE, or Tescos, etc - as long as they paid shareholders a fair price (say the average of the market share price over the past decade).

If government think that can run any of these companies better then by all means - pay shareholders the average of the share price over the past ten years - take these companies over - and let the civil service run them. Then in another ten years we can all judge whether the private sector or the government did a better job of running these companies during their respective decade at the helm.

What do other people think of my ideas above?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47746093

So if wages and bills are going up then why isn't CNA's share price?

Is the financial system corrupted beyond repair?

Kilgeever,

And how about you Kilgeever? Do you have disdain for the masses and blind faith in the central bank?

What needs to be being discussed as well as Brexit is the UK economy.

How much lending is available to entrepreneurs currently?

Do banks have bad loans they are only keeping alive for the sake of existing political interests?

What can banks do to help the UK to become more self-sufficient regarding food as one never knows when an import/export crisis could emerge - perhaps one that has nothing to do with Brexit but what would happen if other countries the UK traded with experienced a famine/drought causing crop destruction within our trade partners?

Also what opportunities in life are there for young people - youth unemployment is ludicrously high in Southern Europe - but what is the situation really like in the UK? Would there be all of this knife crime if there were jobs for young people as most of the stabbings seem to occur in the 15-24 age bracket.

Also why will it take 100 years to decommission Trawsfynydd nuclear power station - is there a lack of investment being made available for companies to get involved with such projects at the moment? Surely it is important to get this decommissioned and the site returned to nature - if only to prove that nuclear power is a viable option for the future and it doesn't leave sites (and the immediate vicinity) contaminated and toxic to human health for hundreds of years. Decommissioning will require many skilled jobs and in part a well-educated workforce - who is in charge of the planning for this - what is their budget?

Also just generally why does it currently feel that there are many more obstacles to wanting to forge economic cooperation with other businesses/citizens/banks than people supporting this.

Why do the banks make themselves so intolerant of people who want to borrow money to contribute to the good of society? Why are so many of the lending decisions taken by algorithms whereby any sense of what would benefit local communities seems to get lost. Surely some managers with local knowledge/experience are necessary because what if someone comes along with a brilliant idea for a business but without any previous experiences of growing a business - surely a banks role should then be to ensure the person who had the idea is rewarded but also to connect them with experienced managers and others who can help them to grow their business to the benefit of shareholders?

And lastly why aren't shareholders clamouring for some reason to be shown by banks - it's clearly a nonsense to think that most lending decisions can be made by algorithms - good business has always been made by judgment, feel and touch - something algo don't have a clue about. Hence no wonder shareholders have seen no rise on Lloyds shares since 2008 - who would invest in a bank which assesses whether to lend by an algorithm or an automatic credit scoring system - which do you honestly think is easier to game - an algo or a human. Humans are more intelligent than algos - hence once they understand

Exxon will be happy as well - they plan to be producing 750,000 bopd from offshore Guyana by 2024.

True, but why were RBS and Barclays in a bidding war for a bank (AMB Amro) which even I knew was close to worthless in 2006? At the time I was just an ordinary citizen, not long out of university, with an interest in stock/shares and the market economy as a hobby. I found it extremely strange how these banks RBS/Barclays had the freedom to keep bidding up the price of an asset which it seems no one else in the global market thought was worth anywhere near the price RBS/Barclays were bidding towards ….how did RBS/Barclays become so out of step with everyone else regarding their valuations of assets, and regarding a disregard for a little inside info from ears on the ground in the USA (which nearly everyone else seemed to have) that a lot of US mortgages were fraudulent and being packaged up and sold to non-American banks. How did this all even happen without other countries suing America through the World Trade Organisation for causing an unprecedented global crisis and hence demanding compensation for their losses? Ironically it has been the USA fining foreign banks on a fairly regular basis since 2008. However one might have expected that foreign banks would of been the ones suing the FED for allowing hundreds of thousands of fraudulent mortgages that originated in the USA to be repackaged and sold to banks in other countries (or banks substantially financed by foreign shareholders). It just seems it was a huge financial scam and the people who had a good idea of what was happening at the time have all benefitted from it at the expense of shareholders in Barclays/RBS and a host of other banks (who also had to write off billions) around the globe.

Hi Kilgeever,

I think I know who the smallest group is who really have a huge amount of control over the system ...but as I also believe they have become corrupted (ot that it has become corrupted as a system)….then I think it's best I don't put any names to them on here.

Kilgeever - yes I see that your point is correct. If too many people understood how the free-market economy worked then it wouldn't work, as surely everyone would just try the same tactic as the Bank of England, i.e. to have their own currency which they control the amount in circulation of. Because currently millions of people are working for a currency which they have no control over the supply of - hence they either have an enormous amount of trust that the Bank of England will keep the entire economy balanced, or else if their is significant inflation in any given sector then they may find the money they worked their entire lives for was suddenly devalued - just like annuities/pensions were devalued post 2006/07/08. So yes Kilgeever I think you are very smart - because if everyone understood how much the money-supply had increased since 2008 then a lot of people might think it wasn't worth working when house price inflation has been running so far ahead of wages for the last two decades - this is the biggest sign that the Bank of England has been printing money well ahead of an rate equivalent to their own inflation figures (which have been manipulated downwards in my opinion by the way they treated house prices over the past twenty years).

It's assumed that in any market economy the people will behave as below. However have you seen some of the citizens in the current economy ….. the ones who do nothing but watch TV mostly. Hence there are not 65 million citizens participating in the UK economy even though that is the number of citizens in the UK. Hence I do now believe the system is in a worse mess than I previously thought ….because clearly the assumptions for a free-market economy (see below) don't hold true over much of the globe, nor in the UK itself:

For any free-market economy it's assumed that most citizens will behave in accordance with the 5 assumptions below:
(1) Have a good level of financial knowledge
(2) Trade frequently within the economic system with other economic actors
(3) Consistently seek out information so as to stay up to date regarding a wide range of prices
(4) Behave rationally themselves - i.e. refuse to deal when prices become too low and be willing to sell more as prices rise.
(5) Trust that everyone else they deal with within the system is following 1-4 also.

It's assumed that in any market economy the people will behave as below. However have you seen some of the citizens in the current economy ….. the ones who do nothing but watch TV mostly. Hence there are not 65 million citizens participating in the UK economy even though that is the number of citizens in the UK. Hence I do now believe the system is in a worse mess than I previously thought ….because clearly the assumptions for a free-market economy (see below) don't hold true over much of the globe, nor in the UK itself:

(1) Have a good level of financial knowledge
(2) Trade frequently within the economic system with other economic actors
(3) Consistently seek out information so as to stay up to date regarding a wide range of prices
(4) Behave rationally themselves - i.e. refuse to deal when prices become too low and be willing to sell more as prices rise.
(5) Trust that everyone else they deal with within the system is following 1-4 also.

So what I'm thinking is why do I even bother to invest anymore....clearly if there are so many people in society with little to no financial knowledge (such as about balance sheets and cash flow statements, as well as just simple weighing/adding/multiplying and ratios) then the economy is doomed because a capitalist free-market economy can't operate where the participants don't have a good level of financial knowledge and aren't willing to frequently trade with one another. These two assumptions are vital to any free market, namely that all involved do the following:

(1) Have a good level of financial knowledge
(2) Trade frequently within the economic system with other economic actors
(3) Consistently seek out information so as to stay up to date regarding a wide range of prices
(4) Behave rationally themselves - i.e. refuse to deal when prices become too low and be willing to sell more as prices rise.
(5) Trust that everyone else they deal with within the system is following 1-4 also.

I'm not a fan of the political system which dates from the 17th century and seems barely to have realised it's no longer needed in the internet age - but then again, why would you realise such things if you are being paid £70,000 per year and stuffing your face with fine food and wine in the HoC most days - there are far worse places to be in life than beside the Thames, a short walk from central London, and great wine and food available all day to you.

Anyway my point is that the political system is the one we have - perhaps EasyJet should be asking the question why do they allow government to constantly bash oil companies when the reality is that if oil prices rise to $250 per barrel then EasyJet shareholders are (logically, and the market is not always rational) not going to see any share price rises in the medium-term from the price today.

I'm just saying take a good look at yourselves - I have - and I know I am just some person faced with hugely ethically/morally challenging decisions everyday - because that seems to be the nature of human existence to me. And hence the most important thing I think I can choose to do is to be an open, kind and cooperative person in how I interact with others/the world. And I'm hoping that my theory that there are still enough benefits from cooperation between people that I will most likely find many cooperative people (looking for mutual win-wins) on my path through life. And that's why I don't like to see people criticising any sector of the economy. Oil and gas workers enable people to live a good standard of living - and if MPs want to promote nuclear or solar that's up to them - but they won't look good to the majority of people by ever criticising the companies who produce the Oil and Gas to keep the UK running everyday . And I think EasyJet should remember the same - make your economic choices and get on with it - I didn't think it was wise for our CEO to give an opinion on Brexit/Remain - best to stay out of it and focus on economic cooperation with the oil industry and with businesses based in Europe - that is the safest way to keep the EasyJet business stable, growing and creating shareholder value. All in my opinion - but then even a CEO's words are just an opinion - and that's what they need to remember - they are servants of others and not leaders - CEO's should be servants of the shareholders. And shareholders should be servants of the citizens (providing products and services which they desire).

Except it seems very unlikely that Brexit will ever happen - so I'm happy to blame the weaker pound on poor governance in the UK - this seems at least as likely (if not more likely) than thinking it is Brexit related.

The pound has actually been declining against the Dollar since 2007 - the year when RBS went insane and triggered a financial cataclysm that rocked the modern world - what they valued AMB Amro at so far out of kilter with anyone else that it triggered a wave financial events that nearly (or did) bring governments down - Labour was doing perfectly well in the polls in 2007 until the banking crisis and then getting all the blame in the media for "overspending." However it was RBS who were overspending and I'm not sure that Labour were at fault for that - okay the PPI schemes were corrupt that Labour set up - but every government has favourites and legal ways to funnel money to the people who support it. I think it was a combination of PPI and RBS that really did for Labour, as they were inflating the value of niche interests (commercial property / government infrastructure contracts) way too fast and then people realised the same things was going on in Greece and the USA - kaboom.

It's all pointless anyway as the system dates from the 17th century and the internet changed everything. You may as well be living in a different world to the mainstream if you think a system based on 17th century governance is fit for the 21st century.

The country would function perfectly well without any MPs at all - the internet means that people are free to live their lives...you counldn't expect a 17th century system to last forever - you've had 400 years, time to move on.

Anyway myself and my friends/colleagues are bored to tears with Brexit. People want economic growth, not a load of old men whinging on TV - using a system that bears little relation to modern England but is still more akin to 17th century culture.

Enquest should perhaps charge a Premium for Alma/Galia crude oil due to it's consistent properties and quality. Maybe we should start shipping it to South Korea as sounds like they might be getting fed up of inferior quality sludge mixed with condensate from the USA/Canada.

Take it from someone in the industry, this is real problem. Pipeline capacity is so constrained midstream companies have been mixing oil from different fields in their pipelines and adding friction reducers that allow them to pump more crude through the same lines.

This is not some scheme to raise prices. (Although I'll take whatever I can get.) We manufacture a wide range of hydrocarbon products and need a wide range of crudes to do it. Most shale oils are light crudes, and we're exporting them because we have more than we can use, while we're still importing heavier oils because we have less than we need.

That's why Keystone was so important for US refiners; it was meant to bring Canadian heavy oil south, where it's needed. Unfortunately, the Greens have obstructed it, so the same heavy oil is now being transported by much more dangerous and expensive and carbon-intensive trains.

To better understand the issue I suggest you watch several of EPD's annual shareholder presentations, wherein they say one of their greatest advantages is being able to transport crude oil in lots rather than blends, with consistent quality per lot, so buyers are guaranteed the properties they want and sellers are guaranteed satisfied customers.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/infected-u-shale-oil-being-014257003.html