advertisement


Spending review 2013

Mescalito said:
Ok, prove me wrong. Take a look at how the world actually is, not how a bunch of idealists want it to be.

CFhris
Click to expand...

Proved you wrong earlier with regard to GDP per head of population. You ignored it because it, presumably because it didn't fit with your personal beliefs.

1 Luxembourg 107,206 2012
2 Qatar 99,731 2012
3 Norway 99,462 2012
4 Switzerland79,033 2012
5 Australia 67,723 2012
6 UAE 64,840 2012
7 Denmark 56,202 2012
8 Sweden 55,158 2012
9 Canada 52,232 2012
10 Singapore 51,162 2012
11 USA 49,922 2012
 
Mick P said:
Carney will almost certainly allow inflation to rise and he is not a radical lefty.

The Tories will live with that, it is neither radical nor controversial, just expedient.
Click to expand...

His mandate of course forbids him from letting it rise above 2%, at least without writing a letter to the chancellor. And what we know of his views is that he wants the BoE to have a dual mandate to target both inflation and full employment. Which would no doubt have people calling him a lefty.

And running moderate inflation is controversial and radical. Remember there are significant voices on the Right that insist monetary policy doesn't even work so a high inflation approach to the zero lower bound is very much a radical view. That's why it's called "unconventional monetary policy".

See for example the reaction you get from politicians or Bundesbank officials for suggestion some moderate levels of inflation in Germany to help the devaluation of the southern european economies.
 
Greg said:
Coming back to your point though, it's clear you've made a leap of logic to conclude that the success of the US economy is fundamentally due to the size of the state.
Click to expand...

A conclusion we might characterise as, if we were being kind, a schoolboy error.
 
Mescalito said:
Cue the largo from the "New World Symphony".

Fracking makes a lot of sense, actually, and will have a far, far smaller environmental impact than coal mining. It will also be a lot cheaper and orders of magnitude less labour intensive.

Chris
Click to expand...

Oh Good!

So this unproven technique which has succeeded so far in producing nothing other than earthquakes in north west England, and which if successful at all will produce unpredictably high or low volumes of gas, is better than the system which kept a far more energy hungry economy going for over a hundred years?

And of course with it being 'less labour intensive', there isn't even a positive spin off in employment terms.

Still, it is Private Sector and will no doubt make some American rich, so what's not to like?

Chris. Thinking like yours will inevitably lead to a low participation and increasingly impoverished economy which will quite rightly disappear up its own arse.

Mull
 
All fossil fuels are a finite resource unfortunately. And the poor old dinosaurs died so the Arabs could buy Mercedes! :p

If this darn economy never picks up it looks like we're all doomed! ;)

Seriously, at Ford for example we are seeing UK car sales pick up slowly but rest of Europe is still flat-lining....so maybe UK economy is on a slow turnaround :) US car sales are already high too :)
 
Chris,
I think you might have missed Russel's post ...

Jason

russel said:
Proved you wrong earlier with regard to GDP per head of population. You ignored it because it, presumably because it didn't fit with your personal beliefs.

1 Luxembourg 107,206 2012
2 Qatar 99,731 2012
3 Norway 99,462 2012
4 Switzerland79,033 2012
5 Australia 67,723 2012
6 UAE 64,840 2012
7 Denmark 56,202 2012
8 Sweden 55,158 2012
9 Canada 52,232 2012
10 Singapore 51,162 2012
11 USA 49,922 2012
Click to expand...
 
Mullardman said:
Oh Good!

So this unproven technique which has succeeded so far in producing nothing other than earthquakes in north west England, and which if successful at all will produce unpredictably high or low volumes of gas, is better than the system which kept a far more energy hungry economy going for over a hundred years?

And of course with it being 'less labour intensive', there isn't even a positive spin off in employment terms.

Still, it is Private Sector and will no doubt make some American rich, so what's not to like?

Chris. Thinking like yours will inevitably lead to a low participation and increasingly impoverished economy which will quite rightly disappear up its own arse.

Mull
Click to expand...

I'm all for full economic parrticipation, Mull. But unlike you, I believe that that participation must be efficient & productive. That means if the energy can be produced using 1000 people working in essentially shirt sleeve environments instead of 50,000 people working below ground, you go for the first option every time.

And fraccing is a VERY mature technology, having been used in the oil & gas industry to optimise well flow rates for over 50 years. If the geology is right, it works.

It's environmental impact is also miniscule compared to the coal industry. Once the drilling phase is over, there will be a landscaped field with a few wellheads on it.

Compare that with the average coal mine.

Chris

And yes, it is private sector. Which means it will be efficient & profitable. The country will benefit hugely.
 
Mescalito said:
I'm all for full economic parrticipation, Mull. But unlike you, I believe that that participation must be efficient & productive. That means if the energy can be produced using 1000 people working in essentially shirt sleeve environments instead of 50,000 people working below ground, you go for the first option every time.

And fraccing is a VERY mature technology, having been used in the oil & gas industry to optimise well flow rates for over 50 years. If the geology is right, it works.

It's environmental impact is also miniscule compared to the coal industry. Once the drilling phase is over, there will be a landscaped field with a few wellheads on it.

Compare that with the average coal mine.

Chris

And yes, it is private sector. Which means it will be efficient & profitable. The country will benefit hugely.
Click to expand...

concidering anywhere in our tiny country is barely ever over 60 miles or less from a coast as well as being highly populated, i don't see how we can get anywhere near enough cheap energy from fracking. whereas america is a mahoosive land mass.

private sector like the companies that couldn't run olympic security or the nhs 111 phone lines or the failed train companies.... etc etc.
 
Mescalito said:
And yes, it is private sector. Which means it will be efficient & profitable. The country will benefit hugely.
Click to expand...

As the people from Bhopal, the Niger delta and many other places around the world will no doubt testify.
 
darrylfunk said:
concidering anywhere in our tiny country is barely ever over 60 miles or less from a coast as well as being highly populated, i don't see how we can get anywhere near enough cheap energy from fracking. whereas america is a mahoosive land mass.

private sector like the companies that couldn't run olympic security or the nhs 111 phone lines or the failed train companies.... etc etc.
Click to expand...

We are talking about the oil & gas sector here. Trust me, they ARE efficient & VERY, VERY profitable.

Chris
 
darrylfunk said:
not harvesting fuels on land in the u.k. chris.
Click to expand...

What do you think the coal industry did for 200 years? The environmental impact of fraccing is miniscule in comparison.

Also, coals impact on the actual geology is vastly greater. Go ask anyone who lives in an ex-mining area (thankfully, they are very few extant mining areas) about mining subsidence.

Chris
 
paul auster said:
Whilst I appreciate you may have an expertise on this situation , the impact of fraccing is by no means an accepted consensus .
Click to expand...

If fraccing is done properly, ie get the drilling & well casing operations right, it is probably the least environmentally damaging sort of non-renewable energy extraction.

Chris
 
BTW My Sister lives right next to the experimental fracking plant in Lancashire and it's an area on basically reclaimed land already known for subsidence and flooding. It's hard to imagine a worse place where they might want to do this.

Given the very wide areas it affects and the density of population in the British Isles it's hard to see it not being a very risk proposition.
 
matthewr said:
Isn't that a bit like saying Stalin was not as bad as Hitler?
Click to expand...

Not at all. Why do you imply that there is something inherently wrong with energy extraction? Do you feel the same way about iron ore extraction, or bauxite extraction or copper ore extraction?

All are essential.

Chris
 
matthewr said:
BTW My Sister lives right next to the experimental fracking plant in Lancashire and it's an area on basically reclaimed land already known for subsidence and flooding. It's hard to imagine a worse place where they might want to do this.

Given the very wide areas it affects and the density of population in the British Isles it's hard to see it not being a very risk proposition.
Click to expand...

How? What is the risk.?

Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top