Credit deflation and the reflation cycle to come (part 3)

[ThoughtCriminal]

He's spot on. No bullshit, not afraid to call out the "expert" class as charlatans.

 

Nice recommendation from CV.

[DurhamBorn]

1 hour ago, Boon said:

Must be near £40k gross I would guess.

As usual there is some major detail to the story omitted, clearly people can get buy on £2.3k a month.

Would guess either husband don't work or not there, or over-leveraged on mortgage.

The four local bobbies went past my window this morning,not after criminals,to play golf,they are all retired on people working for £10 in warehouses on nightshifts taxes.

If she was living with a bloke on similar wages she would be in the top 10% of household incomes.Her problem isnt pay,its the fact her raging lefty views and probably flabby arse doesnt appeal to decent men.

[Axeman123]

I don't see a point to all this forcing Russia to "default", when it isn't dependant on foreign borrowing in the first place. It all just seems emblematic of a trend for both sides to target the other using the tactic that would hurt themsleves worst if the boot was on the other foot.

So for example the US tries selling the story that Putin is losing popularity, has health problems, or is facing defenestration. Russia isn't a democracy so this means nothing to Putin, he will kill or imprison anyone fool enough to give it a go. Besides telling on themselves re Biden being a vegetable etc, the Americans are also openly signposting their greatest weaknesses and fears. Even this attempt to cut Russia off from borrowing money it doesn't depend on is really just projection of their own need to continually pass conterfeit paper to keep the plates spinning.

Putin does something similar, when he tries to talk intelligently and at length about the situation etc as if 99% of Americans etc will hear a single word of it from their media. He is wasting his time, with anything he says distorted to a five second soundbite to make him sound mental. Presumably Russians actually get spoken to like grownups by their government, and Putin can't grasp that he cannot engage similarly with Americans.

[One percent]

1 hour ago, RJT1979 said:

Good money for some thick lass from wales

Try living on that wage in londonistan. My london weighting for central london was 2 grand.  Before tax. 

[Democorruptcy]

1 hour ago, MrXxxx said:

1. Portfolio diversification and not risking 5% of capital in any one area.

It means at least 20 chances of getting something wrong and you have spread your time thinner, so upped the chance of missing something. If you wanted 5% on the pot and one of the 20 goes kaput, you then need 10.5% on the remaining 19.

[One percent]

7 minutes ago, DurhamBorn said:

The four local bobbies went past my window this morning,not after criminals,to play golf,they are all retired on people working for £10 in warehouses on nightshifts taxes.

If she was living with a bloke on similar wages she would be in the top 10% of household incomes.Her problem isnt pay,its the fact her raging lefty views and probably flabby arse doesnt appeal to decent men.

@The XYY Man may be interested. 
 

runs away

 

 

 

[JMD]

3 hours ago, belfastchild said:

The calculations did. Full lifecycle with annual coefficients. Granted no mention of fit vs fat (can fat ones walk 4 miles or get on a bike?).
It was also heavily weighted towards CO2 which of course was also later studied as well to only give part of the picture.

Its not that difficult to grasp when you think about it in terms of evolution and migrating to the most efficient way of doing things. Up to a point its more efficient to walk, then cycle, then get the car. Granted, the margins arent that big unless you are at the wider areas of the scale (walking 5 mins, driving 20 miles etc), but it really is the way transport etc has evolved, drive from rural location to nearest train station, everyone get the train to the city station, walk/cycle/taxi from there.

I don't think I understand the data. Are they basically saying that local transport systems are efficient, ie small towns, cycling, etc. But that long commuting journeys or airplanes can never deliver bang for their extortionate buck? Are we talking EROI here?

[Chewing Grass]

12 minutes ago, M S E Refugee said:

Can they refuse payment?

Yes, they will just say 'money laundering' or that they don't like you.

[Loki]

1 minute ago, One percent said:

@The XYY Man may be interested. 
 

runs away

 

 

 

for fucks sake

[leonardratso]

1 minute ago, Chewing Grass said:

Yes, they will just say 'money laundering' or that they don't like you.

Thats a given, i dont like HMRC, doesnt mean i can ignore them though.
Surely theres some sort of remediation or comeback should they try this on?

[Axeman123]

17 minutes ago, DurhamBorn said:

Her problem isnt pay,its the fact her raging lefty views and probably flabby arse doesnt appeal to decent men.

99% of women neatly summed up. You could replace the word pay with virtually any other complaint they have and the sentiment would still hold true. Similarly you could replace the word lefty with any other descriptor of a womens' views.

[Yadda yadda yadda]

36 minutes ago, Chewing Grass said:

Actually they can as it is written into standard mortgage agreements that they can reclaim the debt at any time for any reason.

Would that be termed a fair clause in a court of law?

[JMD]

3 hours ago, Noallegiance said:

The author keeps talking about voids and blank sailings. But is this story fundamentally about China embargoing the West and yet no one in the West is prepared to speak about it?

[Harley]

1 hour ago, MrXxxx said:

Alongside you @Harley, I have been reviewing my approach/es; I know you have several portfolios based on financial outcomes. After much 'research'; I started investing [read buying!] in 2020, and since then have done more research to formulate my own approach to a personal portfolio; no disrespects to others on here i.e. @DurhamBorn, but rather than following their 'tips' blindly I have wanted to a) understand what I have bought and why, and b) how it fits my goals, this way I would have a 'toolbox' to make my own investment decisions. Coming to the point, I have done much 'navel gazing'/formulation of ideas and have come to the conclusion that the maximum gains from ones investments are reliant on the following generalizations, rather than individual specifics:

1. Portfolio diversification and not risking 5% of capital in any one area.

2. Buying at the right price for a specific stock/sector rather than the right time, and selling at the wrong time.

3. Keeping costs to a minimum i.e. TER, trading fees, broker fees.

4. Controlling [and benefiting from] human behavious i.e. FOMO

5. Reducing complexity to enable as little time required for their management.

I know, pretty obvious, but the 'obvious' that I think people often forget by trying to find an over complicated solution to a simple problem and/or squeeze out that little extra alpha, and as a result a) spending far too much time for any smaller gain i.e. not time/cost effective, and b) sometimes ending up with sub-par results than if they had taken a simple approach.

Excellent!  I beautifully agree with every point and try to do each.  There's doing what you do and then there's looking at what you do.  They may or may not be obvious but few really internalise them and live by them.

[belfastchild]

26 minutes ago, JMD said:

I don't think I understand the data. Are they basically saying that local transport systems are efficient, ie small towns, cycling, etc. But that long commuting journeys or airplanes can never deliver bang for their extortionate buck? Are we talking EROI here?

None of the above.

Its an engineering based postgrad on future energy use/provision within framework constraints based on environmental regulations/wish lists.
Part of the coursework is a series of scenarios and you can work out which method is 'best' given the constraints and so on.
So obviously long commuting journeys will be out in the future, as you will have to balance the delta between wages locally for a similar different job and the energy required to get you the extra cash and ultimately how that extra cash is produced and what you do with it. Full lifecycle stuff.
Bang for the buck is just one input so if you need stuff flown halfway across the world it might be, in the end, the only option both cost wise and environmentally but and its a big but it would have to be critical. So for example the vegan cycling diet figures only really worked for stuff grown within an x mile radius (really goes back to human history) and not quinoa or avocadoes flown halfway round the world. Their beef diet figures were also based on US ones with huge industrial farms, which are always used to put it in a bad light. I successfully argued I live in a different country and within a mile of my house I have beef, sheep, lamb all grass fed and due to the nature of the land thats all it was suitable for, so was the most environmentally friendly option possible. For me.

I did the course to get an insight into current US university thinking and was surprised at it. Wind was mostly ignored because most of the US isnt suitable so it came down to solar and nuclear and stuff produced locally.
Most of the calculations were generic, like the stuff you see online but then you have to go and do the research for whats local to you (solar incidence maps etc) and apply it.
A lot of it echoed the surplus energy blog (although not explicity saying so) and what CP has posted on here.

I fly to Liverpool a lot for the football, sometimes I take the ferry, the ferry is nominally 'better', but if I have breakfast, lunch and dinner on it, its not. If I have to pay for parking, its not because I have to earn the money to pay for the parking etc etc.
If I fly out on a day earlier on one of the scheduled flights its better than flying out on the days closer to matchday, both financially and because if there is enough demand they put on extra flights, the extra flights are over and above what would normally happen etc etc. Its more about calculating the extra and going deeper than the average figures thrown about.

It might appear off topic but I thought it gave a good indication of the direction things may go, which to me at least, mirrors the macro picture talked about for years (onshoring, high overseas goods/food prices etc etc).

[sancho panza]

3 hours ago, Noallegiance said:

What does this mean in laymens terms?

1 hour ago, Lightscribe said:

£40-45k gross but she’s actually right, the accountant advised her to leave and go on benefits as she’ll be better off and she would be. So the question remains why not? Why not for all the younger generation just say fuck it.

Her pension won’t really be a factor for staying since they moved the age goalposts and raised the contributions.

Chances are at her age (40+) she’s striped up with £200k+ mortgage. £2.3k a month may just not be enough per month for a single salary house hold. Same story with the whole of the younger (actual working) generation of today. 

It’s easy to say avocado toast and iPhones etc, but they are more highly indebted than any generation before them. If the working PAYE backbone of the system folds over the whole system collapses. 
 

WE have young starters at work earning a wage that jsut about keeps their head above water in an HMO(ambulance service for thsoe that don't know).

Police and fire are better paid and once you're a few years in,it's ok but we've got youngsters buying hosues on 35 year mrotgages ffs.

Problem coming for the police(and ambulance service) is that the pay to shit ratio is totally out of kilter for all but 10 year plus staff.I work an urban area in the Midlands.I work with the police msot weeks and I can see the churn.All the older ones are getting out soon as they can,ones left are a lot less experienced and dare I say it,not as handy with aggressive/nasty 'clients'.

The upper echleons are loving it as they can tell their delusional politcal overlords that all is well and we have however many more thousand police officers than last year but that's really only half the story.

last job sat night was someone,recently arrived from North Africa,intoxicated,been fighting,got hit on head with stone.Couldn't speak English.Police had no one to send-.and that's not an isolated incident.Happening laods lately.Lot of UK cities circa 300,000 people will have 12-15 police on a shift.Leicestershire has about 35-40 covering a Friday night for example.

Whilst the story featured misses some nuance,the reality is that the wages at the bottom of the police and ambo are dire and retention is a real issue that the public will only learn about the hard way when they call for help because they're getting burgled/mugged etc and there's either noone to attend or the one they send is 21 and straight out of uni with a degree in social work.

the inner cities are going to blow up imho,Police don't have the resource to control them any more.

I know we have the odd policeman one here,so feel free to tell me I'm wrong.

[sancho panza]

55 minutes ago, DurhamBorn said:

The four local bobbies went past my window this morning,not after criminals,to play golf,they are all retired on people working for £10 in warehouses on nightshifts taxes.

If she was living with a bloke on similar wages she would be in the top 10% of household incomes.Her problem isnt pay,its the fact her raging lefty views and probably flabby arse doesnt appeal to decent men.

I'd love to know how much of police budget goes on pensions and apparently ye olde Police commisoners take a decent cut of the budget as well.

[HousePriceMania]

Inflation 11%, Interest Rates 1%.

 

Just ordered more gold.  These loons are not going to stop.

[Lightscribe]

17 minutes ago, sancho panza said:

What does this mean in laymens terms?

WE have young starters at work earning a wage that jsut about keeps their head above water in an HMO(ambulance service for thsoe that don't know).

Police and fire are better paid and once you're a few years in,it's ok but we've got youngsters buying hosues on 35 year mrotgages ffs.

Problem coming for the police(and ambulance service) is that the pay to shit ratio is totally out of kilter for all but 10 year plus staff.I work an urban area in the Midlands.I work with the police msot weeks and I can see the churn.All the older ones are getting out soon as they can,ones left are a lot less experienced and dare I say it,not as handy with aggressive/nasty 'clients'.

The upper echleons are loving it as they can tell their delusional politcal overlords that all is well and we have however many more thousand police officers than last year but that's really only half the story.

last job sat night was someone,recently arrived from North Africa,intoxicated,been fighting,got hit on head with stone.Couldn't speak English.Police had no one to send-.and that's not an isolated incident.Happening laods lately.Lot of UK cities circa 300,000 people will have 12-15 police on a shift.Leicestershire has about 35-40 covering a Friday night for example.

Whilst the story featured misses some nuance,the reality is that the wages at the bottom of the police and ambo are dire and retention is a real issue that the public will only learn about the hard way when they call for help because they're getting burgled/mugged etc and there's either noone to attend or the one they send is 21 and straight out of uni with a degree in social work.

the inner cities are going to blow up imho,Police don't have the resource to control them any more.

I know we have the odd policeman one here,so feel free to tell me I'm wrong.

You are right SP retention is the no.1 issue. Meagre starting pay and no achievable pension worth staying for is one thing, less experienced colleagues to help deal with with shit when things get bendy is another.

But getting beaten with the shit stick from the media (and possibly new commissioner) making it all a thankless task will be enough to see most senior experienced police to chuck it all in (and this is happening)

Just as an example of that woman police officer in that BBC article. Name one other profession that she wouldn’t be labelled as an ‘Empowered’ woman ‘Heroic bringing up 3 kids on her own’ etc etc.

Being a police officer (and ambulance isn’t far behind) is one of the last few ‘free targets’ in the media.

That is unless she left of course and then sued for a grievance, sexism etc then she would suddenly become a media hero.

Some may cheer at that, but trust me you won’t be in the years to come. 

[feed]

Before the 1970’s most people rented.

That only really changed in the 80’s (unsurprisingly – availability of credit).  Peaked in the 90’s with property the lowest cost in 100 years and availability of credit.  More credit post Greenspan/dotcom bust followed, but like everything else it’s fallen off after the GFC.

40 years of the most benign conditions in the West with a goldilocks squared zone in 1990’s.  And we all know why.  

But outside of that working people haven’t owned property. 

Reversion to the mean.   It’s just going to take another decade for people to realise it.  
 

https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20160107120359/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census-analysis/a-century-of-home-ownership-and-renting-in-england-and-wales/short-story-on-housing.html

 

[Noallegiance]

9 minutes ago, sancho panza said:

What does this mean in laymens terms?

Hedhaul:

Headhauls are the highest revenue-generating shipping lane. These are shipments that are closer relationally to the carrier themselves. They are usually easy to acquire loads from primary customers and promise a full truck; there’s no need to drive empty.

Blank sail = cancelled ship.

So, in short, the next month will see between a quarter up to over a third less stuff leaving China. A lot of that stuff used to be 'guaranteed, no worries, we got it how much ya want?' kind of product, much of which would be bound for the USA.

The narrative of 'peak inflation' may well be pushed further off if Ukraine continues, oil capacity stays low and product volume is reduced.

[Noallegiance]

2 minutes ago, feed said:

Before the 1970’s most people rented.

That only really changed in the 80’s (unsurprisingly – availability of credit).  Peaked in the 90’s with property the lowest cost in 100 years and availability of credit.  More credit post Greenspan/dotcom bust followed, but like everything else it’s fallen off after the GFC.

40 years of the most benign conditions in the West with a goldilocks squared zone in 1990’s.  And we all know why.  

But outside of that working people haven’t owned property. 

Reversion to the mean.   It’s just going to take another decade for people to realise it.  
 

https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20160107120359/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census-analysis/a-century-of-home-ownership-and-renting-in-england-and-wales/short-story-on-housing.html

 

The question for me is, if we return toward a 23% ownership and mass ownership was dependent on mass credit, can I get myself into the 23% with zero or minimal credit?

That's the plan. But we know what the universe can make of plans!

[HousePriceMania]

 

[feed]

3 minutes ago, Noallegiance said:

The question for me is, if we return toward a 23% ownership and mass ownership was dependent on mass credit, can I get myself into the 23% with zero or minimal credit?

That's the plan. But we know what the universe can make of plans!

Everyone on this thread is smart enough and old enough to be able/ to have been able to capitalise on it.  If they choose too.   The problem is that for the younger cohort it just isn’t going to be possible. 35 year mortgage or not. 

They were simply born too late. 

 

It's the economy, Macro, stupid.. 

"The economy, stupid" is a phrase that was coined by James Carville in 1992. It is often quoted from a televised quip by Carville as "It’s the economy, stupid." Carville was a strategist in Bill Clinton's successful 1992 presidential campaign against incumbent George H. W. Bush. His phrase was directed at the campaign's workers and intended as one of three messages for them to focus on. The others were "Change vs. more of the same" and "Don't forget health care."

 

  
 

[HousePriceMania]

9 minutes ago, feed said:

Before the 1970’s most people rented.

That only really changed in the 80’s (unsurprisingly – availability of credit).  Peaked in the 90’s with property the lowest cost in 100 years and availability of credit.  More credit post Greenspan/dotcom bust followed, but like everything else it’s fallen off after the GFC.

40 years of the most benign conditions in the West with a goldilocks squared zone in 1990’s.  And we all know why.  

But outside of that working people haven’t owned property. 

Reversion to the mean.   It’s just going to take another decade for people to realise it.  
 

https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20160107120359/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census-analysis/a-century-of-home-ownership-and-renting-in-england-and-wales/short-story-on-housing.html

 

I recall a stat from my school days that something like 90% of Scottish people rented, mostly social housing