Best Of

https://x.com/John_Stepek/status/1881718234841509987

John Stepek
@John_Stepek
You know if we're going to build a few more runways, maybe it would be intellectually consistent and growth-oriented to drill for a bit of oil and gas too

It's interesting the contrast with Norway. New oil and gas drilling... But also 90% of new cars are electric.

Because they have lots of oil and gas to provide consistent electricity for them.

Norway's electricity is almost entirely renewable: 88% of power is provided by hydroelectricity.

It's interesting that Germany's decision to end nuclear power is forcing Norway to reconsider selling electricity to them because the spikes in demand push up prices for Norwegians even though they are self-sufficient.

How does that make sense? If Norway is self-sufficient and exporting to Germany, then spikes in price can only be good for Norway - they get more money for the same number of electrons.

It's not good for Norwegian consumers whose bills go up.

Why would Norwegian consumer bills go up? It would be the opposite. High prices are great if you're a country that exports electricity. The Norwegian power companies would get more money from exports, so they wouldn't need to charge domestic consumers so much.

Where did you actually see it reported that
Norway is to reconsider selling electricity to
Germany?

Electricity is a fungible good (ignoring transmission lists, etc).

So if you can sell for 100 to Germany or 10 to Norway you sell to Germany

Consumers always pay the marginal cost (unless they have hedged)

Yep:

And there is also the impact of some industries that are just proxies for energy: nitrogen fertilizers, aluminum
smelting, and purifying silicon to name but three. If the price of energy moves in one place, then production in another jumps up to compensate.

Which is why it didn't matter how dependent or not you are on Russian gas, you got the same impact from their removal from the gas market.

Taking this to its logical conclusion, would you argue that there's no point having a national energy policy at all?

I think there's a good case for taxing negative externalities, freeing up the planning process, and letting the market decide.

With that said, there are still a few projects where the government probably needs to play a role. I think the lack of has storage in the UK (a common good problem) meant that UK generators needed to pay whatever it took to secure LNG cargoes, while countries with significant storage facilities were able to take much more of a wait and see attitude.

LNG storage, and SMR Nuclear which has massive export potential.

I tend to be very sceptical of nuclear power, simply because it has never been delivered economically viably before. If Rolls Royce wants to spend their money on it, they are free to do so, but should UK taxpayers be footing the bill? (The government has a rotten record at picking winners.)

Well there are three companies, in three countries, trying to push similar technology.

UK, USA, China.

The American company is about to drop out, pausing development having failed to receive an order, so either the UK government gets behind RR or the whole potential worldwide market goes to China.

A sensible UK government would be able to structure a deal where the risk of a failure to deliver lies with the company rather than with the government, but it was many years since I last understood risk management in UK government contracts.

The sane approach is to buy a couple.

Payment due when reactors delivered, with a specified power output, passing safety inspections etc. Contract penalties for under performance.

Trump just announced 3 trillion of investment declared today and upto 7 trillion by the end of the week

He said this is all at the expense of China

Maybe there is a lesson here for Reeves

Do not produce an anti growth jobs budget, scare away millionaires and non doms, but get them all to invest through tax breaks and welcome them with open arms

You're right. If only Reeves declared £1.5 trillion of unfunded investment at the budget then it would have all been fine. The markets would have loved that.

Instead we got a black hole’s worth on carbon capture.

Your regular reminder that the carbon capture scheme is a Tory government policy which Labour have simply adopted.

Not the best excuse, especially since their selling point is that they are not the Tories.

Not an excuse. They need to revisit it.
However you would be forgiven for thinking this is Ed Miliband’s personally conceived scheme if you listened to PB Tories.

Trump just announced 3 trillion of investment declared today and upto 7 trillion by the end of the week

He said this is all at the expense of China

Maybe there is a lesson here for Reeves

Do not produce an anti growth jobs budget, scare away millionaires and non doms, but get them all to invest through tax breaks and welcome them with open arms

You're right. If only Reeves declared £1.5 trillion of unfunded investment at the budget then it would have all been fine. The markets would have loved that.

Instead we got a black hole’s worth on carbon capture.

Your regular reminder that the carbon capture scheme is a Tory government policy which Labour have simply adopted.

Not the best excuse, especially since their selling point is that they are not the Tories.

Not an excuse. They need to revisit it.
However you would be forgiven for thinking this is Ed Miliband’s personally conceived scheme if you listened to PB Tories.

Or that Ed Miliband is the only thing stopping some sort of utopia where the UK runs on cheap, bountiful British gas which is somehow not influenced by world energy markets or geology:

https://www.nstauthority.co.uk/media/9002/ss_and_dd_charts_feb_2023_v2.pdf

There was some debate as to whether it was even a Nazi salute. I thought it was.

An South African who spends a lot of time on far right Social Media didn't realise the meaning of the gesture?

He can't be very bright if so!

Very many commentators have made that very same point today that it must have been accidental due to his lack of self awareness. Autism again, I guess.

Autism, the friendly name for Apergers

Just like Alsations, the name was changed to avoid negative connotations

In this case, the fact that Hans Asperger was apparently, a Nazi...

No it isn't.
Asperger's was a subset (a cluster) of ASD.
There are more than 200 known genetic markers for the condition. You only need a handful to be on the spectrum.
That's why it's a spectrum.
And that's why it's incredibly varied. Hence "neurodiverse".
Asperger's is just a high functioning (ie, valued in a Capitalist society) expression of one aspect.

There is some truth in the Nazi bit though and it is no longer used as a result.

"Asperger's syndrome was retired in 2013 with the publication of the fifth edition of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5).1
Barahona-Corrêa JB, Filipe CN. A concise history of Asperger syndrome: The short reign of a troublesome diagnosis. Front Psychol. 2016;6. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02024


One reason it was retired is that DSM authors wanted to avoid the misconception that Asperger’s was a different condition from autism. A second reason is that Hans Asperger was a Nazi and collaborated in the murder of children with disabilities under the Third Reich.2 Researchers and clinicians wanted to distance themselves from this horrible history and legacy."

https://www.verywellhealth.com/does-asperger-syndrome-still-exist-259944#:~:text=Asperger's syndrome was named after an Austrian

Indeed.
It was the "friendly name for Autism" claim I was objecting to.

Fair enough although I do recall when middle class people would very much more happily have admitted that their child had Asperger's rather than admitting that they were autistic.

I saw a really good program on C4 catchup recently built around autism. It was called Patience. The main character worked in criminal records and her autism meant that she picked up patterns no one else noticed. Well worth a watch if you haven't seen it.

My eldest has an autism diagnosis although she is high functioning and it was fascinating seeing her traits shown in this way. One of the best examples is that she would plot out her conversations with people in advance in writing, something my daughter also does, and then get completely panicked the moment it went off script. It also didn't shy away from the limitations either.

Yes, there certainly are jobs where being a high functioning autistic is of benefit. Security checks on baggage at airports is another. Repeated tasks are comforting rather than boring.

Often Autistic people are very sensitive, so mortified when they realise they have inadvertently offended. It's almost the opposite of being rude.

Around 15% of the population is neurodiverse to the point that it interferes to some degree with their social, psychological or emotional functioning.

Let’s be honest, many if not most of the posters here are “on the spectrum”.

However, it does not - with only a few exceptions - result in a general sympathy for the AfD and other fash-flirting movements, nor an inability to avoid accidentally sieg heiling as we go about our business.

Talking of accidental sieg heils, this is a classic moment in German comedy:

https://youtu.be/Ang6Fw9Ff2k

David Miliband lobbies for Mandelson's job as Trump team pressures PM to drop him

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/david-miliband-lobbies-mandelsons-job-trump-team-pressures-starmer-drop-him-3494262

What is it with the Nu10k that think they can just waltz into a job with no demonstrated ability to do it? Give it to somebody who knows how to ambassador.

A former foreign secretary is quite obviously qualified to be an ambassador having been the country's top diplomat.

He hasn't been Foreign Secretary for a decade and a half, wasn't a notable success at it, wanted the leadership, lost, left in a fit of pique for a Nu10k job, then fifteen years later thinks he can waltz back in. No. Let the existing one stay on.

I don't know if he should get the job, yes, it might be best to keep the current one on rather than have a high profile figure who attracts attention. But the point is he is more than qualified as someone who has acted as our top diplomat and ran a massive US NGO that co-ordinates with governments all the time.

In normal times he would be an ideal choice given his relationships with US politicians, just Trumpworld's peculiarities mean it might be best to pick someone who is more of a blank state rather than someone they see as friendly with their political enemies.