Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Sorry, on re-reading, you were referring to wage deflation as a threat to repayment schedules? Well, yes and no.


From a bank-centric point of view, the banks are only required to make profit over and above costs. If costs are dropping through deflation, then service fees such as interest can drop accordingly. This is preferable to bankruptcy - the natural consequence of excessive repayment defaults.


Tragically this only applies if the employees of the banks suffer the long term consequences of their decisions. It doesn't work if one annual bonus is enough to keep them in gold slippers for life.

So what is a more palatable solution...?


I'd like to see:


*an increase in cash reserves compared with loan exposure

*a reduction in repayment periods for credit (ensuring the real economic environment for repayment schedules is more transparent)

*bonus payments for senior financial executives vested in shares over decades not months (exposing them to the long term impact of short term decisions, encouraging them to remain with one firm rather than more opportunistic behaviour)

*broader bonus terms based on holistic business success rather than divisional targets (meaning executives are exposed to the destruction certain strategies can wreak in other market areas)

*restrictions on derivative products that make speculative investments now, based on projected market conditions in the future

All perfectly sensible, though would clarify the last point to say restrictions on speculation on derivative futures products.

Futures themselves have a perfectly sensible use aimed at reducing risk exposure to possibly harmful conditions in the future (ie to damaging fluctuations in FX rates or commodities prices, say a big building firm having the right to buy steel at a capped price).

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Overall I thought the programme was somewhat

> informative, but heavily one-sided.


It does a good job as far as it goes. I don't know of a better or more neutral treatment in this format. It's a pity religious and conspiratorial elements were included - I suspect commercial motives.


> Its proposed solutions ...


I don't subscribe to.


The extant system is unstable and liable to collapse under certain circumstances. As far as I can see, G20 is focused on restoring the system to what it was before. That's not enough, in my view.


The challenge is to apply rigorous and transparent controls that anticipate the likely stresses that Climate Change and Peak Oil will have on the global economy in the not too distant future.


For those who do not see Climate Change and Peak Oil as viable threats, it's a moot point.

I don't see Peak Oil and Climate Change as threats to our very existence that will put us back into HAL9000's stone age (tho' I doubt many of the premises of the latter), but more as part of a changing environment in which we (the human race) are existing and to which we respond / adapt and evolve.


Two centuries ago the Royal Navy was worried that there were not enough oak trees to build future warships - 150 years ago the Victorians were predicting a gridlock in London of horse drawn vehicles and horse dung. Advancing technology did away with the problems. Peak Oil represents a similar situation - predicating disaster based on continuing current trends without proper consideration of emerging and current technology that is already responding to the long predicted exhaustion of oil and other resources.

But worrying about things (constructively) is what we should do surely? It's one thing to say "well, previous problems have been sorted out by ingenuity" but it's moe true to say we often strike lucky, and that luck always runs out


The current financial crisis was predicted by some only to to be told "sush - it's different this time - go away you jeremiah"

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't see Peak Oil and Climate Change as threats

> to our very existence that will put us back into

> HAL9000's stone age (tho' I doubt many of the

> premises of the latter),


We've spent the last hundred years turning massive quantities of fossil fuels into human biomass that needs ever more massive quantities of resources to sustain itself, in the process compromising the stability of the planet's climate and our ability to feed ourselves.


If some unforeseen tipping point kicks in we may not have the time to develop technological fixes - that is the danger.


> but more as part of a

> changing environment in which we (the human race)

> are existing and to which we respond / adapt and

> evolve.


Isn't that what I am advocating - but by being proactive rather than complacent?

MamoraMan - I think comparing the danger of climate change including the over-heating of the earth rendering vast swathes uninhabitable, to the production of excess horse-dung in Victorian London a little disingenuous?


The trouble with many of the so-called new technologies (although many of them haven't advanced much since the 1980s) is that they remain a distant pipe dream. Take hydrogen fuel cells for example. In theory an excellent alternative to the petrol driven engines of the present. The Bush administration invested billions in it (to the detriment of the electric car btw) but a workable hydrogen car/motorbike/engine remains elusive due to five major, and so far, insurmountable problems (this is care of Joseph Romm, author of The Hype About Hydrogen):


1. Current fuel cell cars cost an average of $1,000,000. This cost has to drop.

2. Current materials cannot store enough hydrogen in a reasonable space to provide the range customers demand.

3. Hydrogen fuel is wildly expensive. Even hydrogen from dirty fossil fuels is two or three times more expensive than gasoline and hydrogen from clean electrolysis even more so.

4. The need for an entire new fuelling infrastructure. Someone is going have to build at least ten or twenty thousand hydrogen fuelling stations, before anybody is going to be interested.

5. Competing technologies will improve over time as well. You have to hope and pray that the competitors in the marketplace don't get any better. Because right now the best car in the marketplace just got a lot better - the hybrid vehicle.


Now, this is just one technology that is seen as a future saviour, has billions spent on it and yet still isn't a realistic alternative to fossil fuels.


Surely what we should be doing in the meantime is making the most efficient use of those fuels and ensuring we burn them in the cleanest way possible. So to argue, which I think you are MM, that we can sit back, relax, and wait for technology to save us seems ostrich-like behaviour.

MamoraMan - I think comparing the danger of climate change including the over-heating of the earth rendering vast swathes uninhabitable, to the production of excess horse-dung in Victorian London a little disingenuous?


Suggesting I was comparing is disingenuous. I was making the point that extrapolating from a known position without taking into account current and future change has been wrong in the past. HAL9000 doesn't seem to believe that science and technology could resolve the quoted problems - I believe they can.


I am a climate change sceptic - but I know that there's a lot a fine and very clever research and development going on that will reduce reliance on fossil fuels. Thus I do not, personally, lie awake panicking about the end of the world and Peak Oil issues.


Hydrogen fuel cells are but one of many avenues being explored - the recent breakthrough in battery technology making electric powered cars far more realistic is encouraging, particularly when backed by nuclear fusion power stations - which could also make the hydrogen at a low cost (tho' I'm not convinced about DC's cost argument - I spent much time in vessels that produced hydrogen 24/7 through electrolysis - we actually wanted the oxygen and our problem was disposing of the hydrogen overboard quietly).


I am sure human ingenuity and perseverance will resolve the issues - that doesn't mean I'm sitting back and abrogating responsibility - I support the research efforts and have always been an enthusiast for both pure and applied scientific research. Surely only luddites would refuse to applaud new technology.

Marmora Man Wrote:

> I was making the point that extrapolating from a known

> position without taking into account current and

> future change has been wrong in the past.


> HAL9000 doesn't seem to believe that science and

> technology could resolve the quoted problems - I

> believe they can.


Your arguments are contradictory.


You do not believe technology can foresee problems but you believe that technology can solve those same problems.


> I am a climate change sceptic - but I know that

> there's a lot a fine and very clever research and

> development going on that will reduce reliance on

> fossil fuels.


Implies the same contradiction.


What exactly is a climate change sceptic?


1. The climate never changes.

2. The climate will remain the same from now onwards.

3. The climate changes but has no effect on mankind.


> I am sure human ingenuity and perseverance will

> resolve the issues


But those qualities are useless when it comes to detecting changes in the climate and extrapolating them into the future?


> I support the

> research efforts and have always been an

> enthusiast for both pure and applied scientific

> research. Surely only luddites would refuse to

> applaud new technology.


But you ignore any research that foresees survival threatening climate change?


Just for the record: I am a great believer in science and technology. It's human nature I don't trust.

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Neologism #3,277: Fisknacious. ney - shuhs] -

> adjective

>

> Showing latent tendency to fisk; inclined to fisk

> readily; fisksome

>

> Origin - 2009 EDF, HAL2009, demonstrating tendency

> to pedantry reflected in fictional sociopathic CPU

> of similar name

>

> ;-)


You should have seen me before the lobotomy. Daisy, Daisy, .....


(Edited to increase pedantry rating.)

Personally I cannot see hydrogen fuel cells taking off any time soon. The vehicles are too complex and expensive, and the process of producing the hydrogen is costly and will take time to scale up. And nobody will buy these cars unless there are enough places to fill up (chicken and egg situation). I think the medium term solution for cars will be to improve efficiency, and to develop hybrid technology.


Nuclear fission is a long, long way from being a feasible source of power. Maybe it will be viable one day, but the truth is that nobody knows. So we really have to look at alternative sources combined with lower consumption, instead of pinning hopes on a technology which may never bear fruit.

Basically ever since the enlightenment every time we've assumed that human rationalism and applied science will solve issues, or allow us to control disease, our environment, our markets or even our wars, we've been brought down low.


The level of progress, advancement and problem solving in the last 300 years, is indeed unprecedented, but then so is the severity of our failures. Surely the current mess is an indicator of just how little we can predict or control.


I understand what you're saying Mamora Man, essentially that your pint is half full, but it smacks, albeit in the nicest possible way, of the sort of hubris which always seems to be followed by his old enemy.


There is no room for complacency in the challenges we face, one of the reasons why I keep banging on about investment in education, universities and scientific research needing to be vastly increased. Fusion really is a maybe. we've poured a lot of time and effort and infrastructure over the last 50 odd years, into getting to the point of using enough energy to power a small town to create a few brief seconds of fusion. Hardly an encouraging pace.


The sea-change in our behaviour needs to start now, and can only be a win-win for humanity as a whole. Through cooperation and reasonable behaviour, rather than faith in reason, will we succeed (though the latter might end up helping a lot of course).

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...