Jump to content

SillyBilly

Member
  • Content count

    121
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Television

    My TV in my rented flat hasn't been on this year as yet. Some obscure England qualifier would have been the last occasion.
  2. Another shooting

    A perfectly reasonable point and a good post. It is important to remember the two sides of any debate. There is no denying the sincere motivations of any person calling for change when innocent kids are butchered, who could? They want action, and if this is what liberal minded people stand for who wouldn't want to run with that? In these cases though it is easy to ignore the "conservatives" on the other end who would in the face of all that still maintain no change is better than change. Leading is a very fine line and therefore not for the faint-hearted as a result, you certainly shouldn't lead as a reactionary though as that is almost always bad. Generally and perhaps veering off-topic, I would say there is a clear danger the West falls too far into reactionary liberalism as a policy tool to tackle millenia old problems. Meanwhile those who don't see the world through rose-tinted spectacles are side-lined as idiots and fools. That obviously can't be right and hence the need for balance. Anyway, I digress, a decent leader would recognise both positions can be fraught with danger. Despite perhaps not being immediately obvious those that would, without second thought, drip feed away civil liberties in order to protect citizens (e.g. access to all your data, take all weapons, 24 hr surveillance etc.) are also putting future generations at an appreciably higher risk of an authoritarian state. Perhaps the political, religious, economic situation is not as it is today in 50 years...and that giving a government all the power and none to the people wasn't such a good idea afterall. Nobody can predict the future that is for sure but you must take lessons from the past!
  3. Another shooting

    I've never given it too much thought but now you've asked the question my own opinion is that it would make a confrontation markedly less likely. Arm me with a baseball bat and tell me to take on a Rottweiler and I'd back myself to win but I'd know I'd not come out of without injury...so perhaps I'd think twice. Compare to say a cleansing of a gunless European country, taking Heanor town for instance, seems positively academic compared to taking a Hick Texan town where the townsfolk are armed to the teeth. No question who wins in the end but at what cost? Reading this back it is a sort of backward endorsement of nuclear weaponry (not intended) in a sense as the same principle applies. The guy with the larger arsenal likely wins but he'd think twice about pressing the button if he knew you could inflict damage back. This all sounds a bit apocalypse prepper anyway, conscious not to detract away from a point that for some the constitution is worth fighting for given the vein in which it was written.
  4. Another shooting

    Do I think the man next door should have a big red button to protect him from his oppressive government...then no. But short of taking the argument to its absolute absurdities to detract from a reasonable point, I'd suggest it is not a ringing endorsement of government having those weapons either or a justification of why police or government forces need to be armed to the teeth. Ideally we'd have a world where no government has any weapons of mass destruction, genocide doesn't happen and citizens don't own AK 47s but its not going to happen.
  5. Another shooting

    When you do a risk assessment (I should know: I have risk modelled the UK's nuclear waste plans) you account for a likelilood and a severity rating and combine them to give you a risk. The actions of fellow citizenry is far more likely (naturally) but far less severe (and far less of an overall threat) than the actions of a nefarious government. When I modelled, I went out to millennia, not next week, even 50 years is a long time in human development, I don't understand your confidence and I am immediately suspicious of people like you as naïve (sorry). Case in point: Nobel peace prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi presides (or more accurately stands idly by) over the latest attempted genocide of Robinya muslims. 7000 last month in a country a fraction the size of the US which "only" has 15,000 murders/year. The whole premise of your argument still rests on the fact all human historical precedence (in fact, even current events) is meaningless with the fabled belief that we will never repeat the mistakes of the past. . The significance of your being wrong suggests orders of magnitude in consequential effects...but that is alright because you likely wouldn't live to see the end result? Citizens ofcourse need to give more powers for their protection to the state...when has this ever ended well? Lets throw the overly simplistic tally chart/risk assessment that a government is far more a risk and do the easy thing and confiscate rights today! The American Constitution was designed to protect against erosions of citizen rights and consequently it is so fiercely defended when it is at threat of being watered down. For me, its not just guns by the way, it goes deep to my politics that government should always be limited in size and decision making possibilities, responsibilities and liberties should always, where possible, be owned by individuals where it is far less likely to do damage if it goes wrong. I guess this is the American proxy of that.
  6. Another shooting

    The central tenet of public gun ownership clearly isn't an idiotic idea and its brazen to say so in my view; with even the slightest comprehension of very recent global history one might come well to appreciate why the American constitution is as it is. Easy to visualise America's gun ownership types as rednecks with cowboy hats toting guns on their waist. It completely ignores the fact though that some very intelligent men wrote the American Constitution based on the atrocities and persecution they had personally lived through in Europe at the hands of their own governments. Little would they have known was that worse was to come 150 years after they'd enshrined it. As recently as the 1970s a government slaughtered millions in Cambodia. The idea that if the government has a certain type of gun then the public must be allowed it too isn't crazy to me? Why is to you. may I ask? Because its never going to happen again? History always, always repeats itself. I don't think we're evolutionarily advanced enough to not have an appreciable risk at any moment of any country not being seized by a crazed lunatic or a military type junta and ultimately turning its weapons on its own folk. I would never own a gun personally either FWIW. Every tragedy, one, tens, hundreds, or millions remains a tragedy.
  7. Carillon

    I think we're anything but stable given a doubling of the national debt in one of the longest expansions in economic history and expanding CB balance sheets by as much as 500% throughout the same time. But we can differ on that. That is sober reading for me considering there doesn't seem to be any insurance policy for a recession 10 years into a long-toothed business cycle. If these are the growth numbers, what happens when GDP contracts?! Living way beyond our means and that is not counting unfunded liabilites. Don't see where the slack is to buy Western debt if you remove China's collosal contribution. There has to be limits of credibility for CBs to keep buying, I guess we can argue where that line is drawn.
  8. Carillon

    China holds 20% of foreign owned US treasury bills, notes, and bonds. In other words the West's standard of living for the past 10 years has been a function of Chinese willingness to extend credit. I don't think mortgaging the West to the Chinese to support non-productive economies is sustainable. Make no mistake we'd have had global depressionary conditions if the Chinese did not invest in the West from 08/09, they have kept us on life support.
  9. The Finance Thread

    2017 year profits for Apple = 48.35bn USD 2017 profits for Swiss Central Bank =55.25bn USD For me, this is an abrogation of the role of central banks almost bordering on a criminal extension of their priviledges. "Lenders of last resorts" have now morphed their role into printing money at zero cost and buying the markets. These are real assets they're buying, real companies with real estate, employees, IP, stock etc. With nothing money. And now a small central European country's central bank earns more than the wealthiest company in the world? The Japanese central bank is buying literally everything. The ECB in my opinion cannot afford to taper to nothing. The Fed will reserse its balance sheet winding down big style at the first sign of recession. Where does it end? The Fed is interesting as they're trimming their balance sheet at the same time as a front-loaded tax bill comes into effect where the biggest tax cut is in fiscal 2019( starting Oct 1, 2018). I see the Fed and the White House having distinctly conflicting objectives in terms of economic and fiscal policy. No way can the US earn $280bn (the tax cut) of growth immediately to offset one policy alone. Couple that with $75bn approved for defense increases. $81bn fund for disaster aid. $50bn already enacted. And the costs of getting the bill through the Senate? The under-the-table bribes will have been extraordinary for a bill like that. A Maine senator was supposedly promised a cast-iron bailing out of Obamacare deficits @ $20bn/year to the insurance companies. The US already is already expecting to run a deficit of 700bn USD in fiscal year 2019, adding up everything else then the US needs to flog at least 1.2trillion (6.1% GDP) AT THE SAME TIME the Federal reserve is committed to winding down its balance sheet? The Fed is committed to dumping about 600bn of existing bonds into the market by not rolling over, Uncle Sam wants 1.2trillion more, all this on the open market? The ONLY reason yields are so low is central banks have been buying the market, flood the market with that gargantuan amount then there is only one direction of travel for interest rates. Unless the fed reverses its only policy. Expanding the deficit 10 years into a recovery is a decision Trump will massively regret in my view. I think its calamitous.
  10. Derby County F.C. v Bristol City F.C.

    Thought it was actually a very entertaining game for a 0-0. Think Winnalll had the best chance of the lot, anything substantial on that cross and it'd have been in. City looked dangerous but never actually troubled Carson so on balance I'd say we were hard done by. Ref was poor but we've had lots of penos this season, just have to take it on the chin and move on. Huddlestone and centre backs had a good game for me. I do like Russell as a trier but his lack of end product can make him wildly frustrating to watch, just expect him to beat 2-3 men then ballon it over the bar. Disappointed in Lawrence overall, cheap free kicks in the first half 2-3 times as well which need to be cut out.
  11. Brexit or Eurin?

    Bond ownership: ECB = Bought up 40% of all Eurozone government debt Bank of England = 23% of Gilts. Current monetary easing.: UK = £375m per week of corporate bond purchases. £1.5bn/month easing. ECB = Just cut asset purchases (mostly corporate, whatever sovereign they can ge their hands on) in half to 30 billion euros/month. £26.44bn/month easing. Down from £52.88bn from April last year. And £90.77bn/month before then. Adjust for UK economy size relative to EU and easing 3 times as much. Deposit rate: ECB = -0.4% BoE = 0.5% It'll be the middle of this year at current rate by which point the ECB will own about 33% of all German debt to which it can't hold more courtesy of its own purchase criteria. Will then be in the bargain basement of junk debt again. Italian? Numbers show Europe is living on more borrowed time than the UK IMO. Both boats are leaking, just I'd rather be in ours.
  12. Why?

    Probably got to clear his cell out for a my-word-against-his falsely accused uni student in a freshers week escapade... no doubt who will serve the full term as well! You simply cannot commit that volume of serious crime and not be a danger to society again, one rape and I'd be suspicious of rehabilitation chances...potentially hundreds and ten or so proven? Well, what an embarrassment for British justice.
  13. The Finance Thread

    But I'm only on my third Abbot Ale of the night! Was specifically answering ZR with that post, I think he will understand as littered with the usual BS investment buzzwords
  14. The Finance Thread

    Still around ZR and nice post! A point on cryptos, I read them as merely another manifestation of mistrust in fiat currencies and moneyed control over the financial system; a geek's equivalent of the Occupy Wall Street movement in 2011 but with some interesting future consequences. The current e-currency variations are all first edition, none will last and none are of any interest now unless you like gambling. Bitcoin is merely first mover; all are provingly obselete with their block chain technology, each trading off between one another in speed, security or fairness and yet not one having all three courtesy of the underlying method and principle. Alternatives like Hashgraph are blatantly now second edition and something will emerge out of that or another iteration of the same technology. In other words, watch the space but a trip to Vegas could be as lucrative! The markets are being led by the biggest market caps marching to relentlessly more crazy P/E ratios, if you've picked individual stocks, unless your Buffett or Soros you've probably been badly beaten as most stocks are down yet indices are at record highs. It is this sort of unbalanced performance that makes me very cautious about putting money in. On PMs we're watching the same numbers ZR. Fundamentally my position is the same, I think PMs will be the best long term investment over the next 10 years or so but the journey to there in my lens is: Dollar Index continues its current trend down for now but this to be very temporary, to as low as 86-88 (certainly will push up the PMs to the price points you mention). Very abrupt movement in the opposite direction at any hint of a liquidity crisis and another recession (wrong on dates clearly but my position remains unchanged, perhaps even more entrenched) and the dollar index to shoot up even more rapidly than 2008/2009. Personally I can see approaching the 80's highs in the dollar index so I have budgeted out to 125 ish as being entirely possible. Net effect given commodities priced in dollars = Gold down below 1000 USD, as low as $700, silver sub $12, oil sub $20 etc. = buy of the century for commodities if you can be patient! Treasuries will have once last boost (TLT to $150+) so a good hedge if you can time and I do hold them. I have made my own assumptions as to how the Fed/ECB/BoE will react in any future downturn and my money is firmly on a truly gigantic reflation (i.e. Fed printing $8 trillion+) with a shorter term deflationary bust in the immediate aftermath before the monstrous amount of stimulus goes to work. The winners will pick the stocks where this money goes. The consumer cycle from the 80s built on ever increasing debt levels relative to GDP is dead (Corbynistas may recognise this), private sector debt is plateauing at record highs, even a slight push up by 10% or so is not possible without repeating 08/09. I see whole industries, namely those consumer faced non-essentials, and those industries to which have benefited from 40 years of disinflation (consistently lower inflation and lower interest rates) as therefore uninvestable. So that makes heavy industrial, commodities, semi-conductors, transports, energy and agriculture (potash etc.) as highly investable in this future reality. Incidentally all of which benefit from the ever increasing global population and all of which can tolerate reflation most easily due to asset depreciation being less than associated price increases and the ability to pass on inflationary input costs to the end consumer. Companies with very expensive assets and low debt in these industries are the individual stock picks I'd go for once the dollar peaks out. What I don't want is bonds/fixed income. The above is the opposite of mainstream thinking but I am comfortable enough I can afford to miss out on the last hurrah in bubble markets for a couple more years to see me well over the next 20 or so before I retire. I don't plan to do a lot from here but buy and hold a few funds and individual stocks whenever TSHTF (e.g. GDX,GDXJ,SIL,URA,COPX,FCG). So basically: Short term: - Hedge in US treasuries - PMs (dollar-cost averaging month-by-month seems reasonable) - Cash Medium/Long - - Silver (most attractive), gold,platinum, lithium and their miners. Uranium from about 2025 when supply/demand becomes interesting again. - Energy - Agriculture/heavy industrial - Companies with very expensive assets (e.g. power stations that depreciate much less than the price increases) Avoiding: - Southern UK housing stock - Disinflation stocks - Bonds/fixed income - Consumer stocks That is where I am at anyway ZR, thanks for reviving the thread!
  15. Bitcoin

    Last few weeks has been the "shoeshine" moment for me for the cryptos, when mates down the pub want to get in on the act you know you need to go home and sell everything. Newbies are the lambs for the slaughter. An old colleague I haven't spoken to in years messaged me out the blue on Facebook last night asking about Litecoin and Ethereum...reeks of dotcom when these guys are getting pulled in.
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.