Best Of

Something I learned today: Graphite bombs.

https://x.com/mcccanm/status/2035592536191086865

Ok, here’s what you need to know about “Bombing Electrical Facilities”…

Several countries, to include the U.S., use “Graphite Bombs”. These aren’t bombs in the sense you are thinking; they have a small explosive charge, but don’t destroy something by brute force.

Instead, long graphite filaments are expelled. They extend across power lines & create a short-circuit. Either some form of protection cuts power to the line, or the line eventually fails. The graphite is vaporized in the process, leaving nothing behind.

The effect is that the power goes out. These are sometimes called “Soft Bombs” & “Blackout Bombs”.

We’ve used these before. They were used in Desert Storm, but unfortunately we used actual bombs later & did a lot of damage that couldn’t be repaired quickly. This is considered a mistake…the point is to disrupt electricity in a way it can be rapidly restored when hostilities cease, minimizing suffering of the civilian population. After all, without electricity, water & sewer systems stop working…which leads to public health issues.

Fuel shortages in Australia


“The Australian government acknowledges that six oil tankers from Malaysia, Singapore, and South Korea, expected to arrive next month, have been canceled.

Today, 147 petrol stations ran out of petrol or diesel”

https://x.com/sprinterpress/status/2035720933881602385?s=46

Jeezo. This really is happening, isn’t it? How long before the great British driving public starts to panic and we see long queues at petrol stations?

Local Tesco Express was quiet just now BUT 3 of the 6 pumps were coned off, suspect running low.

No diesel in our local Tesco, for a couple of days apparently (my wife picked up a few - non fuel - things there this morning and asked).

Are we doing enough to stimulate panic buying yet?

So Trump has been having 'constructive' conversations with the Iranians. Are we able to witness an 'Art of the Deal' masterclass (Trump is primarily a businessman who thrives on complex transactional negotiations) that brings this whole dangerous saga to a swift and satisfactory end?

I think it's just about avoiding following through with his escalation to attacking Iranian power plants. With the ensuing carnage that would follow.

I highly doubt there have been substantive talks on the 'core' issues that lead to the opening of the Strait or wider peace.

But we've delayed or avoided the situation getting even worse. So I'll take that as a win.

The Iranians claim no talks have taken place, this is pure TACO.

I'm not sure anyone is going to admit to talks having happened.

I'm sure nobody is talking directly to Trump.

I wonder if US Marines going into Kharg Island is now off the menu?

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
39m
Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.

https://x.com/DPJHodges?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

Point of PB pedant order. Isn't almost all chess 3 dimensional?

Well the pieces can only move in a two-dimensional plane, apart from, arguably, the knights.
And computer chess is not 3 dimensional.

But an enjoyable bit of pedantry nonetheless. Nicely done.

Chess is played on a 2-D board - but speed chess introduces a third dimension.

"Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of global thermonuclear war?"

Can we briefly consider the gulf region after this stops?

The US will not be welcome in the states formerly allied to them. The US military became an existential threat to their existence, not a defender of them.

What do Saudi, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait all now have in common? The need to defend themselves. Against the Americans as much as against Iran.

As we move to a post-America world, I can see a Gulf confederation forming and allying itself to the forming Canada EU ANZUK group, with Japan and Korea increasingly involved as well.

Why would *any* major economy now want to be allied to the US?

Well at the moment the GCC States are doubling down on the US.

https://x.com/ericldaugh/status/2034949395007816002

A

NAE but is not the government gaining a big tax windfall right now on fuel taxes? Why then not cut the tax rate and reduce pump costs as has happened already in Spain for example?

For every 6 penny increase the Gov't gains 1p. So on diesel the gov't is pretty much getting the full tax hike pencilled in already

Yes, that's right.

But for anyone who doesn't know, the Govt only gains VAT. Fuel duty is a fixed number of pence per litre so no gain in Fuel duty.

So if net price up 5p, VAT up 1p (ie 20% of 5p) - so total price up 6p.

However the point is if the public is spending more on petrol they will be spending less on other things, so the VAT take on everything else will go down.

Now some things are zero rated but big picture is Govt may actually gain very little overall.

Given that so many of the basics are zero rated and that fuel is an essential for the majority of people, I think you are wrong that the Govt will gain little overall.

Depends on just how severe the depression is.

I think there is an argument for a reduced tax on fuel but the consensus is it’s one of the “best” taxes to levy - unavoidable, simple, inelastic, and on personal transport highly progressive. The only better alternative is probably income tax.

Doing it in a fuel crisis makes sense short term but in the long term it’s a disaster - this sense that the government will always come to the rescue is why we are so vulnerable to crises, and why our debt is so high. £50 billion in 2022 and wr haven’t learnt the lesson.

It is very regressive on personal transport. Always has been, but today when new vehicles are either hybrids or electric it is more so.

Someone going to a minimum wage job in a 10 year old banger is paying a far higher percentage of their income in fuel duty than someone going to work in their new Tesla.

By decile of income, the poorest pay far, far, far more as a percentage of income on fuel duty. The richest pay far less as a percentage of income. Which is how progressive or regressive taxation is measured.

But it’s the wrong measure. Fuel duty is related to consumption of fuel not the income of the user

Oh absolutely you can debate whether progressive taxation is a good idea or not, but the word has a meaning. It means that the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes up, versus regressive taxation which is the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes down.

Fuel duty is exceptionally regressive. It is one of the most regressive taxes we have. VAT, especially since most essentials (besides fuel) are zero-rated tends to scale with income. Fuel duty does not. The poorest pay considerably more proportionately out of their income than the richer deciles do.

There are not many major taxes we have that are as regressive as fuel duty. Yet Eabhal falsely calls it progressive - that is simply wrong as a matter of fact, setting aside any debate as to whether progressive taxation is a good or bad idea.

You have a completely perverted understanding of what a low-income household looks like. 40% of the bottom quintile income households don’t have a car at all.

Because they’re mostly not working.

Look at those working minimum wage in F&B or doing shifts in hospitals or factories…

They don’t drive anywhere near as much on higher salaries, even after accounting for the fact car ownership is lower.

I think you can make an argument for cutting fuel duty but the progressive one is nonsense. It would much better to take £50 billion off NICs, or council tax for low band households.

The point is that millions of people *need* a car to work, and the poorest of those are massively disadvantaged by the current tax regime.

In a Utopian world where we all have EVs, fuel tax revenue will be zero, so government needs to think about how they replace that revenue.

A

NAE but is not the government gaining a big tax windfall right now on fuel taxes? Why then not cut the tax rate and reduce pump costs as has happened already in Spain for example?

For every 6 penny increase the Gov't gains 1p. So on diesel the gov't is pretty much getting the full tax hike pencilled in already

Yes, that's right.

But for anyone who doesn't know, the Govt only gains VAT. Fuel duty is a fixed number of pence per litre so no gain in Fuel duty.

So if net price up 5p, VAT up 1p (ie 20% of 5p) - so total price up 6p.

However the point is if the public is spending more on petrol they will be spending less on other things, so the VAT take on everything else will go down.

Now some things are zero rated but big picture is Govt may actually gain very little overall.

Given that so many of the basics are zero rated and that fuel is an essential for the majority of people, I think you are wrong that the Govt will gain little overall.

Depends on just how severe the depression is.

I think there is an argument for a reduced tax on fuel but the consensus is it’s one of the “best” taxes to levy - unavoidable, simple, inelastic, and on personal transport highly progressive. The only better alternative is probably income tax.

Doing it in a fuel crisis makes sense short term but in the long term it’s a disaster - this sense that the government will always come to the rescue is why we are so vulnerable to crises, and why our debt is so high. £50 billion in 2022 and wr haven’t learnt the lesson.

It is very regressive on personal transport. Always has been, but today when new vehicles are either hybrids or electric it is more so.

Someone going to a minimum wage job in a 10 year old banger is paying a far higher percentage of their income in fuel duty than someone going to work in their new Tesla.

By decile of income, the poorest pay far, far, far more as a percentage of income on fuel duty. The richest pay far less as a percentage of income. Which is how progressive or regressive taxation is measured.

But it’s the wrong measure. Fuel duty is related to consumption of fuel not the income of the user

Oh absolutely you can debate whether progressive taxation is a good idea or not, but the word has a meaning. It means that the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes up, versus regressive taxation which is the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes down.

Fuel duty is exceptionally regressive. It is one of the most regressive taxes we have. VAT, especially since most essentials (besides fuel) are zero-rated tends to scale with income. Fuel duty does not. The poorest pay considerably more proportionately out of their income than the richer deciles do.

There are not many major taxes we have that are as regressive as fuel duty. Yet Eabhal falsely calls it progressive - that is simply wrong as a matter of fact, setting aside any debate as to whether progressive taxation is a good or bad idea.

You have a completely perverted understanding of what a low-income household looks like. 40% of the bottom quintile income households don’t have a car at all.

Because they’re mostly not working.

Look at those working minimum wage in F&B or doing shifts in hospitals or factories…