IDS in drag is not going to cut the mustard. The difference of course is that IDS was never Prime Minister.
The more you deconstruct Liz Truss the worse it gets. Confidence is just going to collapse and the freedom of action for a chaotic government will be very limited. In the end who are her allies in the Parliamentary party and the Cabinet? Is JRM pitching for Chancellor? Does she leave Patel or Dorries in place? This could be an even worse cabinet than Johnson´s last gasp. In short, WTF?
Give us a wee Finnish tip.
Apologies that I am not able to oblige for the time being. I have been asked to hold off and will do so. It is nevertheless extremely serious.
From this splendid infographic we can see that @turbotubbs is going for Prosaic > Natural > Optical
Which, to my mind, can certainly explain some of the images - eg Gimbal, and GoFast, but does absolutely nothing to explain the turbulence on this issue in high American political/military/journalistic circles. I just don't believe they'd get in such a flap over a fly on the lens, or a gremlin in a gyroscope
You have read The Men Who Stare at Goats, right?
You asked me this before, and it's the same runaround
Simply: "The US Military Taking It Seriously" is not the killer point you think it is.
A warning for Truss seeing herself as the next Thatcher - Thatchers first few years were a complete economic disaster.
The Tory party needs to stop viewing its leaders as copies of previous leaders. Thatcher died in 2013. She was last in power in 1990. The world has changed since then. A political party - an intelligent one - needs to analyse the problems of today and come up with solutions for today's problems. Not think that offering up a reheated version of old solutions, often poorly understood, is the answer.
Wait a second here. For all his manifold faults, back in 2005, David Cameron didn’t present himself as a born again Thatcherite.
Thatcher is an example. One that hangs like an albatross over every female candidate. But look at Boris and Churchill. It's pathetic.
Sure - get some inspiration from your party's history - but a real leader should be setting out a view of what they want to achieve which is about today and the future. They should be comfortable in themselves not constantly looking back to see what Mummy would say.
There is something a bit tragic about the way the Tory party often comes across as an adult who's left home but still goes home to Mum at weekends to get his washing done, to show off and get parental approval.
Cameron may have tried to be the exception but his policy turned out to be Thatcher-style austerity.
I don't hate her. She's saying the economic system isn't working for folk. She's not wrong either.
I'm so old that I thought that Brexit had fixed that because it was all the neo-liberal european technocrats fault.
No, Brexit fixed it because we could untether ourselves from Euro-sclerosis.
Brexit never fixed anything, it just gave us the opportunity to untether ourselves from Eurosclerosis.
Whether we seize that opportunity or not, is up to us as a nation. It won't happen by itself.
Thus Brexiteers blame others for the inevitable failure of Brexit.
Not at all!
Brexit is about taking back control, so we can make our own choices.
Having control doesn't mean you make good or bad choices, its simply giving you the choice. You can choose to make good choices, or you can choose to make bad ones, but its your choice.
Of course you and I can disagree with each other in a lively debate as to which choices are good, or which choices are bad. That's entirely acceptable and democratic.
Brexit was never a magic wand that would make all our problems get worse, or get better. It is no more than returning to us the tools to make our own decision. What we do with those tools, with that control? Well that's up to us. All of us.
I don't hate her. She's saying the economic system isn't working for folk. She's not wrong either.
Saying the system isn’t working doesn’t mean her “solutions” will make things better.
Not it doesn't at all. But it is at least a start of a conversation that hasn't been had. Except by Corbyn.
Perhaps she is true to her left wing childhood. By bringing on the crisis of capitalism she is creating the conditions for revolution.
"The worse, the better" as Lenin once said.
Our highly unequal and increasingly divided society is the direct consequence of Thatcherism 1.0, and she is promising Thatcherism 2.0 as the solution. Only this time without the oil revenues or the Single Market. It's not going to be pretty.
Yet in the 1990s home ownership among the young was much higher than now and student debt was trivial.
The generational inequality we now have was created by Blair and Brown and then increased by Cameron and Clegg.
I'm calling it: Truss will be PM longer than Cameron.
Phew, that's an interesting bet:
David Cameron was PM for just over six years, so from September 2022, that's September 2028.
Which means she needs to win in (probably) May 2024, and then remain in power for a further four and a bit years.
Far from impossible: it is, after all, just what John Major achieved.
What odds will people offer?
She might turn out to be a less awkward Teresa May, with some interesting ideas, and - not hard - much more honest and reliable than Boris, and less boring than Starmer
So @williamglenn has a point. Some Tories thought they'd committed seppuku when they made Thatcher leader
From this splendid infographic we can see that @turbotubbs is going for Prosaic > Natural > Optical
Which, to my mind, can certainly explain some of the images - eg Gimbal, and GoFast, but does absolutely nothing to explain the turbulence on this issue in high American political/military/journalistic circles. I just don't believe they'd get in such a flap over a fly on the lens, or a gremlin in a gyroscope
You have read The Men Who Stare at Goats, right?
You asked me this before, and it's the same runaround
Simply: "The US Military Taking It Seriously" is not the killer point you think it is.
We had this conversation at length, it is wearisome to repeat it, so I won't
"The re-emergence of deep-sleeper AI left behind by the dinosaurs who developed the technology just before the asteroid wiped them out 66m years ago".
Just saying.
Something missing there, as there are plenty of dinos crapping on my shed roof at present.
Yeah but they're not the ones that developed AI 66m years ago, they're just pigeons.
Serious question: if the dinosaurs developed advanced technology in the 10,000 years before the K–Pg extinction event, how would we know?
(Ok semi-serious question)
I think there are some serious geological markers from the existence of human technology now, that lead to some scientists dating we've entered a new geological epoch - the Anthropocene.
If you search for that you'll probably find some of the details.
From this splendid infographic we can see that @turbotubbs is going for Prosaic > Natural > Optical
Which, to my mind, can certainly explain some of the images - eg Gimbal, and GoFast, but does absolutely nothing to explain the turbulence on this issue in high American political/military/journalistic circles. I just don't believe they'd get in such a flap over a fly on the lens, or a gremlin in a gyroscope
You have read The Men Who Stare at Goats, right?
You asked me this before, and it's the same runaround
Simply: "The US Military Taking It Seriously" is not the killer point you think it is.
What is serious is the US military confirming repeated incursions into controlled airspace. The national security hawks should be going crazy over that but because the objects aren’t painted with a hammer and sickle they don’t know what to make of it and shrug. Lesson for China; make all your military drones in the shape of a white tic tac sweet.
"The re-emergence of deep-sleeper AI left behind by the dinosaurs who developed the technology just before the asteroid wiped them out 66m years ago".
Just saying.
Something missing there, as there are plenty of dinos crapping on my shed roof at present.
Yeah but they're not the ones that developed AI 66m years ago, they're just pigeons.
Serious question: if the dinosaurs developed advanced technology in the 10,000 years before the K–Pg extinction event, how would we know?
(Ok semi-serious question)
I think there are some serious geological markers from the existence of human technology now, that lead to some scientists dating we've entered a new geological epoch - the Anthropocene.
If you search for that you'll probably find some of the details.
Currently they'rse considering using the domestic chicken as the zonal fossil for the biostratigraphical side - very widely distributed all of a sudden.
I'm calling it: Truss will be PM longer than Cameron.
Please show your workings out.
Assuming of course each prior step is fulfilled then:
75% Truss becomes PM 95% Truss survives until next election 50% Truss wins next election. 80% Truss survives from winning next election until 2028 crossover date versus Cameron.
75 * 95 * 50 * 80 = 28.5% chance in my eyes. Though the 50% is my biggest uncertainty.
A warning for Truss seeing herself as the next Thatcher - Thatchers first few years were a complete economic disaster.
The Tory party needs to stop viewing its leaders as copies of previous leaders. Thatcher died in 2013. She was last in power in 1990. The world has changed since then. A political party - an intelligent one - needs to analyse the problems of today and come up with solutions for today's problems. Not think that offering up a reheated version of old solutions, often poorly understood, is the answer.
Wait a second here. For all his manifold faults, back in 2005, David Cameron didn’t present himself as a born again Thatcherite.
Thatcher is an example. One that hangs like an albatross over every female candidate. But look at Boris and Churchill. It's pathetic.
Sure - get some inspiration from your party's history - but a real leader should be setting out a view of what they want to achieve which is about today and the future. They should be comfortable in themselves not constantly looking back to see what Mummy would say.
There is something a bit tragic about the way the Tory party often comes across as an adult who's left home but still goes home to Mum at weekends to get his washing done, to show off and get parental approval.
Cameron may have tried to be the exception but his policy turned out to be Thatcher-style austerity.
"The re-emergence of deep-sleeper AI left behind by the dinosaurs who developed the technology just before the asteroid wiped them out 66m years ago".
Just saying.
Something missing there, as there are plenty of dinos crapping on my shed roof at present.
Yeah but they're not the ones that developed AI 66m years ago, they're just pigeons.
Serious question: if the dinosaurs developed advanced technology in the 10,000 years before the K–Pg extinction event, how would we know?
(Ok semi-serious question)
I think there are some serious geological markers from the existence of human technology now, that lead to some scientists dating we've entered a new geological epoch - the Anthropocene.
If you search for that you'll probably find some of the details.
We would likely not know unless the Raptorsapiens also had a destructive hydrocarbon age. They could have developed a court as advanced as Henry VIIIth and we’d likely be none the wiser.
On geology. Someone wrote a paper on this last year didnt they? There have been I think it was three episodes in the geological record of rapid increases in co2 of potential interest but they were more gradual than ours. We broke all records! The others likely have a natural explanation but not necessarily so.
IDS in drag is not going to cut the mustard. The difference of course is that IDS was never Prime Minister.
The more you deconstruct Liz Truss the worse it gets. Confidence is just going to collapse and the freedom of action for a chaotic government will be very limited. In the end who are her allies in the Parliamentary party and the Cabinet? Is JRM pitching for Chancellor? Does she leave Patel or Dorries in place? This could be an even worse cabinet than Johnson´s last gasp. In short, WTF?
Give us a wee Finnish tip.
Apologies that I am not able to oblige for the time being. I have been asked to hold off and will do so. It is nevertheless extremely serious.
Especially since we don’t even know who this rumour refers to.
Adjective surely?
Is fucking adjective or verb? Haha.
She's fucking a verb. A famous noun gave her a right fucking. Her lover "Sir Gerund" was always tempted by the fucking. The future PM is a fucking adjective.
I missed this remarkable FT article on the economic/market implications of UAPs
"What’s curious, then, is the degree to which markets have thus far ignored what is becoming the transformation of one of the greatest unknown unknowns of all time into a known unknown.
"We are, of course, talking about the growing seriousness with which both Pentagon officials and Congress have starting taking the phenomenon of so-called Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) -- more colloquially known as UFOs.
"For markets, the important thing about these developments is the increasingly fervent admissions by high-level security officials that while the phenomena are real, they remain unexplainable even to the most sophisticated militaries in the world."
IDS in drag is not going to cut the mustard. The difference of course is that IDS was never Prime Minister.
The more you deconstruct Liz Truss the worse it gets. Confidence is just going to collapse and the freedom of action for a chaotic government will be very limited. In the end who are her allies in the Parliamentary party and the Cabinet? Is JRM pitching for Chancellor? Does she leave Patel or Dorries in place? This could be an even worse cabinet than Johnson´s last gasp. In short, WTF?
Give us a wee Finnish tip.
Apologies that I am not able to oblige for the time being. I have been asked to hold off and will do so. It is nevertheless extremely serious.
More from the FT on the hit your portfolio might take if we are vaporised by Neptunians
"If the technologies are not human . . . this invites the even more significant question of whether those in possession of the tech are hostile or friendly.
"Both possibilities carry major repercussions for markets and humanity.
"On the friendly front, the opportunity to benefit from superior technologies and knowledge sharing, such as the chance to obtain zero-gravity or “free energy” systems, would be tantamount to a global wealth injection. But it could also court chaos by rendering existing fossil fuel assets even more stranded than they already are.
"On the hostile front, the worst case scenario doesn’t bear thinking.
"Though, as economist Paul Krugman once quipped, there could be a silver lining if efforts to defend humanity from a foreign alien invasion threat led to unseen levels of global collaboration and fast-tracked investment in defence technologies. He even joked it might be worth conducting a hoax to draw such effects in their own right.
"At a minimum, any serious revelation of a potentially hostile alien threat would put other existential threats we are facing in somewhat of a different context.
It’s worth noting there is at least one Wall Street product actively accounting for these risks: note the risk disclosure in the Procure Space ETF prospectus...."
I missed this remarkable FT article on the economic/market implications of UAPs
"What’s curious, then, is the degree to which markets have thus far ignored what is becoming the transformation of one of the greatest unknown unknowns of all time into a known unknown.
"We are, of course, talking about the growing seriousness with which both Pentagon officials and Congress have starting taking the phenomenon of so-called Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) -- more colloquially known as UFOs.
"For markets, the important thing about these developments is the increasingly fervent admissions by high-level security officials that while the phenomena are real, they remain unexplainable even to the most sophisticated militaries in the world."
I’ve mused this for ages. Long before that article. And there’s no clear market play that makes sense to me. It’s not like buying equity puts in Feb 2020, which was basically a sure thing.
"The re-emergence of deep-sleeper AI left behind by the dinosaurs who developed the technology just before the asteroid wiped them out 66m years ago".
Just saying.
Something missing there, as there are plenty of dinos crapping on my shed roof at present.
Yeah but they're not the ones that developed AI 66m years ago, they're just pigeons.
Serious question: if the dinosaurs developed advanced technology in the 10,000 years before the K–Pg extinction event, how would we know?
(Ok semi-serious question)
I think there are some serious geological markers from the existence of human technology now, that lead to some scientists dating we've entered a new geological epoch - the Anthropocene.
If you search for that you'll probably find some of the details.
The Anthropocene is definitely a thing, it's just that it is not yet on a geological time scale. AFAIR there is a fine layer of material all around the globe that can clearly be traced back to the nuclear bombs and nuclear experiments of the 40s and 50s, which is what defines the "Antropocene Era"
I missed this remarkable FT article on the economic/market implications of UAPs
"What’s curious, then, is the degree to which markets have thus far ignored what is becoming the transformation of one of the greatest unknown unknowns of all time into a known unknown.
"We are, of course, talking about the growing seriousness with which both Pentagon officials and Congress have starting taking the phenomenon of so-called Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) -- more colloquially known as UFOs.
"For markets, the important thing about these developments is the increasingly fervent admissions by high-level security officials that while the phenomena are real, they remain unexplainable even to the most sophisticated militaries in the world."
I missed this remarkable FT article on the economic/market implications of UAPs
"What’s curious, then, is the degree to which markets have thus far ignored what is becoming the transformation of one of the greatest unknown unknowns of all time into a known unknown.
"We are, of course, talking about the growing seriousness with which both Pentagon officials and Congress have starting taking the phenomenon of so-called Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) -- more colloquially known as UFOs.
"For markets, the important thing about these developments is the increasingly fervent admissions by high-level security officials that while the phenomena are real, they remain unexplainable even to the most sophisticated militaries in the world."
I’ve mused this for ages. Long before that article. And there’s no clear market play that makes sense to me. It’s not like buying equity puts in Feb 2020, which was basically a sure thing.
The whole article is amazing. More here:
"So what are the consequences for markets?
"Award-winning investigative journalist and author of “In Plain Sight” Ross Coulthart has been investigating what officials really know about UAPs for years. One of the biggest concerns among those in the know, he says, was the potential economic impact on markets if the scale of uncertainty surrounding UAPs in the military became known. “Everyone talks about a potential for a massive collapse in the world economy if this revelation is not handled properly,” he told the FT Alphaville.
"This applies whether the technologies are human or non-human, since both scenarios are highly disruptive."
I'm calling it: Truss will be PM longer than Cameron.
Please show your workings out.
Assuming of course each prior step is fulfilled then:
75% Truss becomes PM 95% Truss survives until next election 50% Truss wins next election. 80% Truss survives from winning next election until 2028 crossover date versus Cameron.
75 * 95 * 50 * 80 = 28.5% chance in my eyes. Though the 50% is my biggest uncertainty.
I missed this remarkable FT article on the economic/market implications of UAPs
"What’s curious, then, is the degree to which markets have thus far ignored what is becoming the transformation of one of the greatest unknown unknowns of all time into a known unknown.
"We are, of course, talking about the growing seriousness with which both Pentagon officials and Congress have starting taking the phenomenon of so-called Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) -- more colloquially known as UFOs.
"For markets, the important thing about these developments is the increasingly fervent admissions by high-level security officials that while the phenomena are real, they remain unexplainable even to the most sophisticated militaries in the world."
"The re-emergence of deep-sleeper AI left behind by the dinosaurs who developed the technology just before the asteroid wiped them out 66m years ago".
Just saying.
Something missing there, as there are plenty of dinos crapping on my shed roof at present.
Yeah but they're not the ones that developed AI 66m years ago, they're just pigeons.
Serious question: if the dinosaurs developed advanced technology in the 10,000 years before the K–Pg extinction event, how would we know?
(Ok semi-serious question)
I think there are some serious geological markers from the existence of human technology now, that lead to some scientists dating we've entered a new geological epoch - the Anthropocene.
If you search for that you'll probably find some of the details.
The Anthropocene is definitely a thing, it's just that it is not yet on a geological time scale. AFAIR there is a fine layer of material all around the globe that can clearly be traced back to the nuclear bombs and nuclear experiments of the 40s and 50s, which is what defines the "Antropocene Era"
Whether it will be detectable in 66m years though must be debatable.
I missed this remarkable FT article on the economic/market implications of UAPs
"What’s curious, then, is the degree to which markets have thus far ignored what is becoming the transformation of one of the greatest unknown unknowns of all time into a known unknown.
"We are, of course, talking about the growing seriousness with which both Pentagon officials and Congress have starting taking the phenomenon of so-called Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) -- more colloquially known as UFOs.
"For markets, the important thing about these developments is the increasingly fervent admissions by high-level security officials that while the phenomena are real, they remain unexplainable even to the most sophisticated militaries in the world."
How much of an investment in tin foil are you advocating?
Just enough to invest in a hat, or do you need more than that?
The PB Nitwits will go on chortling about "aliens" right up to the moment the inter-galactic lizard-folk shove probes the size of euphoniums up their terrified, quivering butt-holes
I guess what I'm trying to say, inspired by @Casino_Royale saying everyone hates her is. And I can't believe I'm defending Liz Truss here, but. We are in an unprecedented Cost of Living crisis. When no one knows what to do, she, at least has an alternative to business as usual. The fact almost all mainstream economists think it isn't feasible, is neither here nor there. It is a plan. In the absence of any other. What we have isn't working. That's plain.
I think this is one area where Labour are weak now. They don't necessarily need to give specifics, but they do need to give a clear sense of where they think the government is going wrong, and what their alternative would look like.
Cameron and Osborne were very good at this in 2010. The government had gone wrong by spending too much and they would fix it by being responsible. But what is Labour's message now? The cost of living crisis sucks and the government is failing? It isn't clear enough. It doesn't take us a step forward.
Yes. That was plenty under Boris. Because there was so much other stuff to go at. A general steer might be good.
I missed this remarkable FT article on the economic/market implications of UAPs
"What’s curious, then, is the degree to which markets have thus far ignored what is becoming the transformation of one of the greatest unknown unknowns of all time into a known unknown.
"We are, of course, talking about the growing seriousness with which both Pentagon officials and Congress have starting taking the phenomenon of so-called Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) -- more colloquially known as UFOs.
"For markets, the important thing about these developments is the increasingly fervent admissions by high-level security officials that while the phenomena are real, they remain unexplainable even to the most sophisticated militaries in the world."
How much of an investment in tin foil are you advocating?
Just enough to invest in a hat, or do you need more than that?
The PB Nitwits will go on chortling about "aliens" right up to the moment the inter-galactic lizard-folk shove probes the size of euphoniums up their terrified, quivering butt-holes
I missed this remarkable FT article on the economic/market implications of UAPs
"What’s curious, then, is the degree to which markets have thus far ignored what is becoming the transformation of one of the greatest unknown unknowns of all time into a known unknown.
"We are, of course, talking about the growing seriousness with which both Pentagon officials and Congress have starting taking the phenomenon of so-called Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) -- more colloquially known as UFOs.
"For markets, the important thing about these developments is the increasingly fervent admissions by high-level security officials that while the phenomena are real, they remain unexplainable even to the most sophisticated militaries in the world."
I’ve mused this for ages. Long before that article. And there’s no clear market play that makes sense to me. It’s not like buying equity puts in Feb 2020, which was basically a sure thing.
The whole article is amazing. More here:
"So what are the consequences for markets?
"Award-winning investigative journalist and author of “In Plain Sight” Ross Coulthart has been investigating what officials really know about UAPs for years. One of the biggest concerns among those in the know, he says, was the potential economic impact on markets if the scale of uncertainty surrounding UAPs in the military became known. “Everyone talks about a potential for a massive collapse in the world economy if this revelation is not handled properly,” he told the FT Alphaville.
"This applies whether the technologies are human or non-human, since both scenarios are highly disruptive."
Highly disruptive. Yes, you could say that
If the aliens are here and wanted to talk to us, they would have talked to us.
As they seem to have no desire to interact with us (assuming they are here), then I fail to see why it should have any impact on the markets, except in that it will be excellent for makers of advanced sensor equipment.
I missed this remarkable FT article on the economic/market implications of UAPs
"What’s curious, then, is the degree to which markets have thus far ignored what is becoming the transformation of one of the greatest unknown unknowns of all time into a known unknown.
"We are, of course, talking about the growing seriousness with which both Pentagon officials and Congress have starting taking the phenomenon of so-called Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) -- more colloquially known as UFOs.
"For markets, the important thing about these developments is the increasingly fervent admissions by high-level security officials that while the phenomena are real, they remain unexplainable even to the most sophisticated militaries in the world."
How much of an investment in tin foil are you advocating?
Just enough to invest in a hat, or do you need more than that?
The PB Nitwits will go on chortling about "aliens" right up to the moment the inter-galactic lizard-folk shove probes the size of euphoniums up their terrified, quivering butt-holes
Possibly true but the PB seers who believe in the aliens early are still going to get the euphonium probe treatment, so where's the advantage?
I'm calling it: Truss will be PM longer than Cameron.
Please show your workings out.
Assuming of course each prior step is fulfilled then:
75% Truss becomes PM 95% Truss survives until next election 50% Truss wins next election. 80% Truss survives from winning next election until 2028 crossover date versus Cameron.
75 * 95 * 50 * 80 = 28.5% chance in my eyes. Though the 50% is my biggest uncertainty.
I would say the "80% Truss survives from winning next election until 2028 crossover date versus Cameron" is the biggest uncertainty
That's almost the full length of the next Parliament, and if it looks like Truss will lose in 2029, then she probably will be evicted before the end of 2028. So, I'd reckon that's more like 50-60% than 80%.
I missed this remarkable FT article on the economic/market implications of UAPs
"What’s curious, then, is the degree to which markets have thus far ignored what is becoming the transformation of one of the greatest unknown unknowns of all time into a known unknown.
"We are, of course, talking about the growing seriousness with which both Pentagon officials and Congress have starting taking the phenomenon of so-called Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) -- more colloquially known as UFOs.
"For markets, the important thing about these developments is the increasingly fervent admissions by high-level security officials that while the phenomena are real, they remain unexplainable even to the most sophisticated militaries in the world."
I’ve mused this for ages. Long before that article. And there’s no clear market play that makes sense to me. It’s not like buying equity puts in Feb 2020, which was basically a sure thing.
The whole article is amazing. More here:
"So what are the consequences for markets?
"Award-winning investigative journalist and author of “In Plain Sight” Ross Coulthart has been investigating what officials really know about UAPs for years. One of the biggest concerns among those in the know, he says, was the potential economic impact on markets if the scale of uncertainty surrounding UAPs in the military became known. “Everyone talks about a potential for a massive collapse in the world economy if this revelation is not handled properly,” he told the FT Alphaville.
"This applies whether the technologies are human or non-human, since both scenarios are highly disruptive."
Highly disruptive. Yes, you could say that
I think people overthink all this. It’s only disruptive if that tech enters humanity’s capabilities. And we do not have control of that. Most people seem to shrug on this topic and say, “it’d be cool I suppose but who really cares, I’ve got more important things to worry about right now. Tell me again when it’s going to directly impact my life”.
Biden could give the speech this weekend. “We’re not alone. The skies and oceans are not just ours. We know little more than the extraordinary observed capabilities and we open our arms to everyone in the world (and odd it! to help us unlock this profound mystery in the name of peace and progress etc….”
Within a few weeks it would be back to Love Island and Test Match Special. The Pope would be doing his normal thing after a special sermon or two. Disney would look nervously at their MCU slate and hope it doesn’t mess their plans too much. And thats be it. It would change everything and nothing.
I missed this remarkable FT article on the economic/market implications of UAPs
"What’s curious, then, is the degree to which markets have thus far ignored what is becoming the transformation of one of the greatest unknown unknowns of all time into a known unknown.
"We are, of course, talking about the growing seriousness with which both Pentagon officials and Congress have starting taking the phenomenon of so-called Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) -- more colloquially known as UFOs.
"For markets, the important thing about these developments is the increasingly fervent admissions by high-level security officials that while the phenomena are real, they remain unexplainable even to the most sophisticated militaries in the world."
I’ve mused this for ages. Long before that article. And there’s no clear market play that makes sense to me. It’s not like buying equity puts in Feb 2020, which was basically a sure thing.
The whole article is amazing. More here:
"So what are the consequences for markets?
"Award-winning investigative journalist and author of “In Plain Sight” Ross Coulthart has been investigating what officials really know about UAPs for years. One of the biggest concerns among those in the know, he says, was the potential economic impact on markets if the scale of uncertainty surrounding UAPs in the military became known. “Everyone talks about a potential for a massive collapse in the world economy if this revelation is not handled properly,” he told the FT Alphaville.
"This applies whether the technologies are human or non-human, since both scenarios are highly disruptive."
Highly disruptive. Yes, you could say that
If the aliens are here and wanted to talk to us, they would have talked to us.
As they seem to have no desire to interact with us (assuming they are here), then I fail to see why it should have any impact on the markets, except in that it will be excellent for makers of advanced sensor equipment.
You don't think the revelation that we are being visited by super-powerful alien forces with incredible technology with opaque intent yet keen to observe us might not be a tiny bit destabilising? As in, people might want to hide all their money under the bed for several decades as they weep with nameless dread? No?
I'm calling it: Truss will be PM longer than Cameron.
Please show your workings out.
Assuming of course each prior step is fulfilled then:
75% Truss becomes PM 95% Truss survives until next election 50% Truss wins next election. 80% Truss survives from winning next election until 2028 crossover date versus Cameron.
75 * 95 * 50 * 80 = 28.5% chance in my eyes. Though the 50% is my biggest uncertainty.
Given recent history the 80% looks way too high.
That 80% is predicated upon the scenario of her winning the next election. First term election winners typically last out a term, the exceptions are the exception and not the norm.
Yes Boris hasn't, but that's quite exceptional. If you count May as an election winner (she didn't get a majority) hers were very special circumstances as well
Before Boris you have Cameron, Blair, Major, Thatcher, Wilson and Heath who all served out their first term after winning their first election. Prior to May (if you count her as a winner) or Boris (if you don't) you need to look all the way back to Macmillan to find the last leader not to finish their first term after winning an election.
I missed this remarkable FT article on the economic/market implications of UAPs
"What’s curious, then, is the degree to which markets have thus far ignored what is becoming the transformation of one of the greatest unknown unknowns of all time into a known unknown.
"We are, of course, talking about the growing seriousness with which both Pentagon officials and Congress have starting taking the phenomenon of so-called Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) -- more colloquially known as UFOs.
"For markets, the important thing about these developments is the increasingly fervent admissions by high-level security officials that while the phenomena are real, they remain unexplainable even to the most sophisticated militaries in the world."
How much of an investment in tin foil are you advocating?
Just enough to invest in a hat, or do you need more than that?
The PB Nitwits will go on chortling about "aliens" right up to the moment the inter-galactic lizard-folk shove probes the size of euphoniums up their terrified, quivering butt-holes
Possibly true but the PB seers who believe in the aliens early are still going to get the euphonium probe treatment, so where's the advantage?
I'm hoping THEY will see me as a kind of honorary go-between, or even a John the Baptist announcing their arrival, and I get to skip the rectum bit
I missed this remarkable FT article on the economic/market implications of UAPs
"What’s curious, then, is the degree to which markets have thus far ignored what is becoming the transformation of one of the greatest unknown unknowns of all time into a known unknown.
"We are, of course, talking about the growing seriousness with which both Pentagon officials and Congress have starting taking the phenomenon of so-called Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) -- more colloquially known as UFOs.
"For markets, the important thing about these developments is the increasingly fervent admissions by high-level security officials that while the phenomena are real, they remain unexplainable even to the most sophisticated militaries in the world."
I’ve mused this for ages. Long before that article. And there’s no clear market play that makes sense to me. It’s not like buying equity puts in Feb 2020, which was basically a sure thing.
The whole article is amazing. More here:
"So what are the consequences for markets?
"Award-winning investigative journalist and author of “In Plain Sight” Ross Coulthart has been investigating what officials really know about UAPs for years. One of the biggest concerns among those in the know, he says, was the potential economic impact on markets if the scale of uncertainty surrounding UAPs in the military became known. “Everyone talks about a potential for a massive collapse in the world economy if this revelation is not handled properly,” he told the FT Alphaville.
"This applies whether the technologies are human or non-human, since both scenarios are highly disruptive."
Highly disruptive. Yes, you could say that
If the aliens are here and wanted to talk to us, they would have talked to us.
As they seem to have no desire to interact with us (assuming they are here), then I fail to see why it should have any impact on the markets, except in that it will be excellent for makers of advanced sensor equipment.
You don't think the revelation that we are being visited by super-powerful alien forces with incredible technology with opaque intent yet keen to observe us might not be a tiny bit destabilising? As in, people might want to hide all their money under the bed for several decades as they weep with nameless dread? No?
I'm calling it: Truss will be PM longer than Cameron.
Please show your workings out.
Assuming of course each prior step is fulfilled then:
75% Truss becomes PM 95% Truss survives until next election 50% Truss wins next election. 80% Truss survives from winning next election until 2028 crossover date versus Cameron.
75 * 95 * 50 * 80 = 28.5% chance in my eyes. Though the 50% is my biggest uncertainty.
I would say the "80% Truss survives from winning next election until 2028 crossover date versus Cameron" is the biggest uncertainty
That's almost the full length of the next Parliament, and if it looks like Truss will lose in 2029, then she probably will be evicted before the end of 2028. So, I'd reckon that's more like 50-60% than 80%.
So you think the sorry from Finland is a slow burner then!
"Canada agrees to share intelligence on UFOs with US ‘given shared priority for nuclear safety’
‘The CNSC is committed to raising the issue with its United States counterpart and sharing any related information going forward,’ the letter read
In a letter released this week from Canada’s Natural Resources department, the signatories discuss the government’s position on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs) near nuclear facilities in the North American country.
“This is an important matter that my colleagues and I in the Natural Resources portfolio take very seriously,” Deputy Minister of Natural Resources John Hannaford said"
Isn't that Canada saying "Yes, the pesky aliens are buzzing our nuclear power stations"?!
I'm calling it: Truss will be PM longer than Cameron.
Please show your workings out.
Assuming of course each prior step is fulfilled then:
75% Truss becomes PM 95% Truss survives until next election 50% Truss wins next election. 80% Truss survives from winning next election until 2028 crossover date versus Cameron.
75 * 95 * 50 * 80 = 28.5% chance in my eyes. Though the 50% is my biggest uncertainty.
Given recent history the 80% looks way too high.
That 80% is predicated upon the scenario of her winning the next election. First term election winners typically last out a term, the exceptions are the exception and not the norm.
Yes Boris hasn't, but that's quite exceptional. If you count May as an election winner (she didn't get a majority) hers were very special circumstances as well
Before Boris you have Cameron, Blair, Major, Thatcher, Wilson and Heath who all served out their first term after winning their first election. Prior to May (if you count her as a winner) or Boris (if you don't) you need to look all the way back to Macmillan to find the last leader not to finish their first term after winning an election.
In the old days, though, it was much harder to remove PMs. Nowadays it's a pot of piss: you just need a few letters and a VoNC.
I'm calling it: Truss will be PM longer than Cameron.
Please show your workings out.
Assuming of course each prior step is fulfilled then:
75% Truss becomes PM 95% Truss survives until next election 50% Truss wins next election. 80% Truss survives from winning next election until 2028 crossover date versus Cameron.
75 * 95 * 50 * 80 = 28.5% chance in my eyes. Though the 50% is my biggest uncertainty.
Given recent history the 80% looks way too high.
That 80% is predicated upon the scenario of her winning the next election. First term election winners typically last out a term, the exceptions are the exception and not the norm.
Yes Boris hasn't, but that's quite exceptional. If you count May as an election winner (she didn't get a majority) hers were very special circumstances as well
Before Boris you have Cameron, Blair, Major, Thatcher, Wilson and Heath who all served out their first term after winning their first election. Prior to May (if you count her as a winner) or Boris (if you don't) you need to look all the way back to Macmillan to find the last leader not to finish their first term after winning an election.
Hence my 'given recent history'.
This switching PMs mid-term without reference to the electorate is bad form and undemocratic imo.
I missed this remarkable FT article on the economic/market implications of UAPs
"What’s curious, then, is the degree to which markets have thus far ignored what is becoming the transformation of one of the greatest unknown unknowns of all time into a known unknown.
"We are, of course, talking about the growing seriousness with which both Pentagon officials and Congress have starting taking the phenomenon of so-called Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) -- more colloquially known as UFOs.
"For markets, the important thing about these developments is the increasingly fervent admissions by high-level security officials that while the phenomena are real, they remain unexplainable even to the most sophisticated militaries in the world."
I’ve mused this for ages. Long before that article. And there’s no clear market play that makes sense to me. It’s not like buying equity puts in Feb 2020, which was basically a sure thing.
The whole article is amazing. More here:
"So what are the consequences for markets?
"Award-winning investigative journalist and author of “In Plain Sight” Ross Coulthart has been investigating what officials really know about UAPs for years. One of the biggest concerns among those in the know, he says, was the potential economic impact on markets if the scale of uncertainty surrounding UAPs in the military became known. “Everyone talks about a potential for a massive collapse in the world economy if this revelation is not handled properly,” he told the FT Alphaville.
"This applies whether the technologies are human or non-human, since both scenarios are highly disruptive."
Highly disruptive. Yes, you could say that
If the aliens are here and wanted to talk to us, they would have talked to us.
As they seem to have no desire to interact with us (assuming they are here), then I fail to see why it should have any impact on the markets, except in that it will be excellent for makers of advanced sensor equipment.
You don't think the revelation that we are being visited by super-powerful alien forces with incredible technology with opaque intent yet keen to observe us might not be a tiny bit destabilising? As in, people might want to hide all their money under the bed for several decades as they weep with nameless dread? No?
No.
Because literally nothing will have changed.
As above. I basically agree. There’s a small percent for whom this would be profound but I’d wager a larger proportion of them are already thinking about this. Most don’t care unless it directly impacts them.
I missed this remarkable FT article on the economic/market implications of UAPs
"What’s curious, then, is the degree to which markets have thus far ignored what is becoming the transformation of one of the greatest unknown unknowns of all time into a known unknown.
"We are, of course, talking about the growing seriousness with which both Pentagon officials and Congress have starting taking the phenomenon of so-called Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) -- more colloquially known as UFOs.
"For markets, the important thing about these developments is the increasingly fervent admissions by high-level security officials that while the phenomena are real, they remain unexplainable even to the most sophisticated militaries in the world."
How much of an investment in tin foil are you advocating?
Just enough to invest in a hat, or do you need more than that?
The PB Nitwits will go on chortling about "aliens" right up to the moment the inter-galactic lizard-folk shove probes the size of euphoniums up their terrified, quivering butt-holes
Possibly true but the PB seers who believe in the aliens early are still going to get the euphonium probe treatment, so where's the advantage?
I'm hoping THEY will see me as a kind of honorary go-between, or even a John the Baptist announcing their arrival, and I get to skip the rectum bit
Anyway, if they are an advanced life-form that are going to be as woke as fuck so no one will be hurt.
Anyway, Liz Truss is the John McDonnell of the Tory party it seems. He wanted to borrow to invest, which had a sort of sense. She wants to borrow to hand money over to taxpayers who are the relatively better off in society, by definition.
Neither she nor Sunak have any plan for how to help the poorest who face real problems now and even more serious ones this winter. Nor any plan to improve productivity which is at the heart of Britain's poor economic performance since the financial crisis, a period during which the Tories have been in power for all but 2 years. Nor any plan to make life better for the young who face usurious student loan interest rates and difficulties in finding affordable housing.
I missed this remarkable FT article on the economic/market implications of UAPs
"What’s curious, then, is the degree to which markets have thus far ignored what is becoming the transformation of one of the greatest unknown unknowns of all time into a known unknown.
"We are, of course, talking about the growing seriousness with which both Pentagon officials and Congress have starting taking the phenomenon of so-called Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) -- more colloquially known as UFOs.
"For markets, the important thing about these developments is the increasingly fervent admissions by high-level security officials that while the phenomena are real, they remain unexplainable even to the most sophisticated militaries in the world."
I’ve mused this for ages. Long before that article. And there’s no clear market play that makes sense to me. It’s not like buying equity puts in Feb 2020, which was basically a sure thing.
The whole article is amazing. More here:
"So what are the consequences for markets?
"Award-winning investigative journalist and author of “In Plain Sight” Ross Coulthart has been investigating what officials really know about UAPs for years. One of the biggest concerns among those in the know, he says, was the potential economic impact on markets if the scale of uncertainty surrounding UAPs in the military became known. “Everyone talks about a potential for a massive collapse in the world economy if this revelation is not handled properly,” he told the FT Alphaville.
"This applies whether the technologies are human or non-human, since both scenarios are highly disruptive."
Highly disruptive. Yes, you could say that
If the aliens are here and wanted to talk to us, they would have talked to us.
As they seem to have no desire to interact with us (assuming they are here), then I fail to see why it should have any impact on the markets, except in that it will be excellent for makers of advanced sensor equipment.
You don't think the revelation that we are being visited by super-powerful alien forces with incredible technology with opaque intent yet keen to observe us might not be a tiny bit destabilising? As in, people might want to hide all their money under the bed for several decades as they weep with nameless dread? No?
No.
Because literally nothing will have changed.
As above. I basically agree. There’s a small percent for whom this would be profound but I’d wager a larger proportion of them are already thinking about this. Most don’t care unless it directly impacts them.
I completely disagree. I believe it would - will? - cause convulsions on a civilisational scale
What would it do to the great religions, for a start?
"An incredible 376 officers were on the scene at the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas in May – a force larger than the garrison that defended the Alamo. All these officers failed to stop an 18-year-old gunman from murdering 19 children and two teachers. A report into the Robb Elementary School shooting commissioned by the Texas House of Representatives found no single weak point in the authorities’ response. Instead, it indicted every single one of the 23 agencies involved. Any of these could have taken control of the situation, yet none did. ‘They failed to prioritise saving the lives of innocent victims over their own safety’, is the report’s damning verdict."
Anyway, Liz Truss is the John McDonnell of the Tory party it seems. He wanted to borrow to invest, which had a sort of sense. She wants to borrow to hand money over to taxpayers who are the relatively better off in society, by definition.
Neither she nor Sunak have any plan for how to help the poorest who face real problems now and even more serious ones this winter. Nor any plan to improve productivity which is at the heart of Britain's poor economic performance since the financial crisis, a period during which the Tories have been in power for all but 2 years. Nor any plan to make life better for the young who face usurious student loan interest rates and difficulties in finding affordable housing.
But, hey, tax cuts = growth, apparently.
Which may just cut it for a couple of years. Debt laden boom. Election. Victory. But the hole the Tories are digging is getting closer to the molten core with every spadeful.
I'm calling it: Truss will be PM longer than Cameron.
Please show your workings out.
Assuming of course each prior step is fulfilled then:
75% Truss becomes PM 95% Truss survives until next election 50% Truss wins next election. 80% Truss survives from winning next election until 2028 crossover date versus Cameron.
75 * 95 * 50 * 80 = 28.5% chance in my eyes. Though the 50% is my biggest uncertainty.
Given recent history the 80% looks way too high.
That 80% is predicated upon the scenario of her winning the next election. First term election winners typically last out a term, the exceptions are the exception and not the norm.
Yes Boris hasn't, but that's quite exceptional. If you count May as an election winner (she didn't get a majority) hers were very special circumstances as well
Before Boris you have Cameron, Blair, Major, Thatcher, Wilson and Heath who all served out their first term after winning their first election. Prior to May (if you count her as a winner) or Boris (if you don't) you need to look all the way back to Macmillan to find the last leader not to finish their first term after winning an election.
In the old days, though, it was much harder to remove PMs. Nowadays it's a pot of piss: you just need a few letters and a VoNC.
So you say and yet its only happened once in the past nearly sixty years for a first time election majority winning PM (and if Truss fails to get a majority, she's almost certainly out anyway, so the 80% is predicated upon only if she wins one).
If its so easy to remove a PM how come Boris was the first time a first term majority-winning PM was removed since Macmillan?
I'm calling it: Truss will be PM longer than Cameron.
Please show your workings out.
Assuming of course each prior step is fulfilled then:
75% Truss becomes PM 95% Truss survives until next election 50% Truss wins next election. 80% Truss survives from winning next election until 2028 crossover date versus Cameron.
75 * 95 * 50 * 80 = 28.5% chance in my eyes. Though the 50% is my biggest uncertainty.
I would say the "80% Truss survives from winning next election until 2028 crossover date versus Cameron" is the biggest uncertainty
That's almost the full length of the next Parliament, and if it looks like Truss will lose in 2029, then she probably will be evicted before the end of 2028. So, I'd reckon that's more like 50-60% than 80%.
So you think the sorry from Finland is a slow burner then!
The story is very exciting (if true). My personal view is that the biggest consequence will not be on either of the runners and riders in the Tory leadership election.
China (and Russia?) have developed ultra-impressive aerospace tech that is so advanced it will APPEAR like classic sci-fi flying saucers. Therefore to get people/soldiers/pilots to report sightings of these things to the Pentagon the stigma about UFOs has to be removed, so people aren't embarrassed
Interesting. And here it is seriously discussed by US weapons experts
Anyway, Liz Truss is the John McDonnell of the Tory party it seems. He wanted to borrow to invest, which had a sort of sense. She wants to borrow to hand money over to taxpayers who are the relatively better off in society, by definition.
Neither she nor Sunak have any plan for how to help the poorest who face real problems now and even more serious ones this winter. Nor any plan to improve productivity which is at the heart of Britain's poor economic performance since the financial crisis, a period during which the Tories have been in power for all but 2 years. Nor any plan to make life better for the young who face usurious student loan interest rates and difficulties in finding affordable housing.
But, hey, tax cuts = growth, apparently.
Which may just cut it for a couple of years. Debt laden boom. Election. Victory. But the hole the Tories are digging is getting closer to the molten core with every spadeful.
Alternatively the Laffer Curve works, cutting taxes from their obscenely high rate leads to economic growth which cuts the deficit and the problem is resolved.
People want to pretend taxes are low in this country rather than at an all time high. They can and should perhaps go higher on those living on unearned incomes, but otherwise people are getting squeezed until the pips squeak already. Cutting taxes leading to more development leading to more tax revenues is sound economics.
I'm calling it: Truss will be PM longer than Cameron.
Please show your workings out.
Assuming of course each prior step is fulfilled then:
75% Truss becomes PM 95% Truss survives until next election 50% Truss wins next election. 80% Truss survives from winning next election until 2028 crossover date versus Cameron.
75 * 95 * 50 * 80 = 28.5% chance in my eyes. Though the 50% is my biggest uncertainty.
I would say the "80% Truss survives from winning next election until 2028 crossover date versus Cameron" is the biggest uncertainty
That's almost the full length of the next Parliament, and if it looks like Truss will lose in 2029, then she probably will be evicted before the end of 2028. So, I'd reckon that's more like 50-60% than 80%.
So you think the sorry from Finland is a slow burner then!
The story is very exciting (if true). My personal view is that the biggest consequence will not be on either of the runners and riders in the Tory leadership election.
And that is all I will say.
Have you heard a second source beyond our own Cicero yet?
China (and Russia?) have developed ultra-impressive aerospace tech that is so advanced it will APPEAR like classic sci-fi flying saucers. Therefore to get people/soldiers/pilots to report sightings of these things to the Pentagon the stigma about UFOs has to be removed, so people aren't embarrassed
Interesting. And here it is seriously discussed by US weapons experts
I'm calling it: Truss will be PM longer than Cameron.
Please show your workings out.
Assuming of course each prior step is fulfilled then:
75% Truss becomes PM 95% Truss survives until next election 50% Truss wins next election. 80% Truss survives from winning next election until 2028 crossover date versus Cameron.
75 * 95 * 50 * 80 = 28.5% chance in my eyes. Though the 50% is my biggest uncertainty.
Given recent history the 80% looks way too high.
That 80% is predicated upon the scenario of her winning the next election. First term election winners typically last out a term, the exceptions are the exception and not the norm.
Yes Boris hasn't, but that's quite exceptional. If you count May as an election winner (she didn't get a majority) hers were very special circumstances as well
Before Boris you have Cameron, Blair, Major, Thatcher, Wilson and Heath who all served out their first term after winning their first election. Prior to May (if you count her as a winner) or Boris (if you don't) you need to look all the way back to Macmillan to find the last leader not to finish their first term after winning an election.
In the old days, though, it was much harder to remove PMs. Nowadays it's a pot of piss: you just need a few letters and a VoNC.
So you say and yet its only happened once in the past nearly sixty years for a first time election majority winning PM (and if Truss fails to get a majority, she's almost certainly out anyway, so the 80% is predicated upon only if she wins one).
If its so easy to remove a PM how come Boris was the first time a first term majority-winning PM was removed since Macmillan?
It is only in the very recent past that backbench MPs have had a formal process for removing Prime Ministers at all - and I don't think any process existed at all for Labour in the past.
I missed this remarkable FT article on the economic/market implications of UAPs
"What’s curious, then, is the degree to which markets have thus far ignored what is becoming the transformation of one of the greatest unknown unknowns of all time into a known unknown.
"We are, of course, talking about the growing seriousness with which both Pentagon officials and Congress have starting taking the phenomenon of so-called Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) -- more colloquially known as UFOs.
"For markets, the important thing about these developments is the increasingly fervent admissions by high-level security officials that while the phenomena are real, they remain unexplainable even to the most sophisticated militaries in the world."
I’ve mused this for ages. Long before that article. And there’s no clear market play that makes sense to me. It’s not like buying equity puts in Feb 2020, which was basically a sure thing.
The whole article is amazing. More here:
"So what are the consequences for markets?
"Award-winning investigative journalist and author of “In Plain Sight” Ross Coulthart has been investigating what officials really know about UAPs for years. One of the biggest concerns among those in the know, he says, was the potential economic impact on markets if the scale of uncertainty surrounding UAPs in the military became known. “Everyone talks about a potential for a massive collapse in the world economy if this revelation is not handled properly,” he told the FT Alphaville.
"This applies whether the technologies are human or non-human, since both scenarios are highly disruptive."
Highly disruptive. Yes, you could say that
If the aliens are here and wanted to talk to us, they would have talked to us.
As they seem to have no desire to interact with us (assuming they are here), then I fail to see why it should have any impact on the markets, except in that it will be excellent for makers of advanced sensor equipment.
You don't think the revelation that we are being visited by super-powerful alien forces with incredible technology with opaque intent yet keen to observe us might not be a tiny bit destabilising? As in, people might want to hide all their money under the bed for several decades as they weep with nameless dread? No?
No.
Because literally nothing will have changed.
As above. I basically agree. There’s a small percent for whom this would be profound but I’d wager a larger proportion of them are already thinking about this. Most don’t care unless it directly impacts them.
I completely disagree. I believe it would - will? - cause convulsions on a civilisational scale
What would it do to the great religions, for a start?
The existence of gay people was way more existential for "the great religions" than aliens would be. They've coped with a lot since Copernicus, and they'd cope with this.
On topic, Truss ahead of Sunak by 24 points feels about right to me. It will probably narrow a bit over the course of the campaign, but she'll probably win 55:45 or thereabouts.
We are about to develop true AI (as I have, ahem, been saying for a while). This means civilisations out there which are AI are now taking a keen interest in our new GPT-baby, the way dogs particularly check out other dogs, or teens pay attention to teens
I missed this remarkable FT article on the economic/market implications of UAPs
"What’s curious, then, is the degree to which markets have thus far ignored what is becoming the transformation of one of the greatest unknown unknowns of all time into a known unknown.
"We are, of course, talking about the growing seriousness with which both Pentagon officials and Congress have starting taking the phenomenon of so-called Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) -- more colloquially known as UFOs.
"For markets, the important thing about these developments is the increasingly fervent admissions by high-level security officials that while the phenomena are real, they remain unexplainable even to the most sophisticated militaries in the world."
I’ve mused this for ages. Long before that article. And there’s no clear market play that makes sense to me. It’s not like buying equity puts in Feb 2020, which was basically a sure thing.
The whole article is amazing. More here:
"So what are the consequences for markets?
"Award-winning investigative journalist and author of “In Plain Sight” Ross Coulthart has been investigating what officials really know about UAPs for years. One of the biggest concerns among those in the know, he says, was the potential economic impact on markets if the scale of uncertainty surrounding UAPs in the military became known. “Everyone talks about a potential for a massive collapse in the world economy if this revelation is not handled properly,” he told the FT Alphaville.
"This applies whether the technologies are human or non-human, since both scenarios are highly disruptive."
Highly disruptive. Yes, you could say that
I think people overthink all this. It’s only disruptive if that tech enters humanity’s capabilities. And we do not have control of that. Most people seem to shrug on this topic and say, “it’d be cool I suppose but who really cares, I’ve got more important things to worry about right now. Tell me again when it’s going to directly impact my life”.
Biden could give the speech this weekend. “We’re not alone. The skies and oceans are not just ours. We know little more than the extraordinary observed capabilities and we open our arms to everyone in the world (and odd it! to help us unlock this profound mystery in the name of peace and progress etc….”
Within a few weeks it would be back to Love Island and Test Match Special. The Pope would be doing his normal thing after a special sermon or two. Disney would look nervously at their MCU slate and hope it doesn’t mess their plans too much. And thats be it. It would change everything and nothing.
If it is 'we are not alone and they are hostile' then buy gold.
Otherwise, I don't see what the effect on markets will be? You might even argue that the stock market will roar because the little green men are coming to save us from climate change by handing us fusion power on a stick.
China (and Russia?) have developed ultra-impressive aerospace tech that is so advanced it will APPEAR like classic sci-fi flying saucers. Therefore to get people/soldiers/pilots to report sightings of these things to the Pentagon the stigma about UFOs has to be removed, so people aren't embarrassed
Interesting. And here it is seriously discussed by US weapons experts
China (and Russia?) have developed ultra-impressive aerospace tech that is so advanced it will APPEAR like classic sci-fi flying saucers. Therefore to get people/soldiers/pilots to report sightings of these things to the Pentagon the stigma about UFOs has to be removed, so people aren't embarrassed
Interesting. And here it is seriously discussed by US weapons experts
I'm calling it: Truss will be PM longer than Cameron.
Please show your workings out.
Assuming of course each prior step is fulfilled then:
75% Truss becomes PM 95% Truss survives until next election 50% Truss wins next election. 80% Truss survives from winning next election until 2028 crossover date versus Cameron.
75 * 95 * 50 * 80 = 28.5% chance in my eyes. Though the 50% is my biggest uncertainty.
Given recent history the 80% looks way too high.
That 80% is predicated upon the scenario of her winning the next election. First term election winners typically last out a term, the exceptions are the exception and not the norm.
Yes Boris hasn't, but that's quite exceptional. If you count May as an election winner (she didn't get a majority) hers were very special circumstances as well
Before Boris you have Cameron, Blair, Major, Thatcher, Wilson and Heath who all served out their first term after winning their first election. Prior to May (if you count her as a winner) or Boris (if you don't) you need to look all the way back to Macmillan to find the last leader not to finish their first term after winning an election.
In the old days, though, it was much harder to remove PMs. Nowadays it's a pot of piss: you just need a few letters and a VoNC.
So you say and yet its only happened once in the past nearly sixty years for a first time election majority winning PM (and if Truss fails to get a majority, she's almost certainly out anyway, so the 80% is predicated upon only if she wins one).
If its so easy to remove a PM how come Boris was the first time a first term majority-winning PM was removed since Macmillan?
It is only in the very recent past that backbench MPs have had a formal process for removing Prime Ministers at all - and I don't think any process existed at all for Labour in the past.
So your real sample size is tiny.
Except no PM has actually been removed via a formal process. They've always been removed via informal processes.
Boris and May both survived their formal VONC and were theoretically "safe for a year" but were removed anyway by an informal process.
Just as Macmillan and Eden before them were both removed via informal processes too, who are the only other first-time winners who have been removed post-war.
We are about to develop true AI (as I have, ahem, been saying for a while). This means civilisations out there which are AI are now taking a keen interest in our new GPT-baby, the way dogs particularly check out other dogs, or teens pay attention to teens
Anyway, Liz Truss is the John McDonnell of the Tory party it seems. He wanted to borrow to invest, which had a sort of sense. She wants to borrow to hand money over to taxpayers who are the relatively better off in society, by definition.
Neither she nor Sunak have any plan for how to help the poorest who face real problems now and even more serious ones this winter. Nor any plan to improve productivity which is at the heart of Britain's poor economic performance since the financial crisis, a period during which the Tories have been in power for all but 2 years. Nor any plan to make life better for the young who face usurious student loan interest rates and difficulties in finding affordable housing.
But, hey, tax cuts = growth, apparently.
Which may just cut it for a couple of years. Debt laden boom. Election. Victory. But the hole the Tories are digging is getting closer to the molten core with every spadeful.
Alternatively the Laffer Curve works, cutting taxes from their obscenely high rate leads to economic growth which cuts the deficit and the problem is resolved.
People want to pretend taxes are low in this country rather than at an all time high. They can and should perhaps go higher on those living on unearned incomes, but otherwise people are getting squeezed until the pips squeak already. Cutting taxes leading to more development leading to more tax revenues is sound economics.
Well yes. That's another way of saying what I'm saying just put far more positively. Public services are still falling apart though. Do you really think.those on unearned incomes will suffer? That isn't part of the plan AFAICS? Nor is more "development".
I missed this remarkable FT article on the economic/market implications of UAPs
"What’s curious, then, is the degree to which markets have thus far ignored what is becoming the transformation of one of the greatest unknown unknowns of all time into a known unknown.
"We are, of course, talking about the growing seriousness with which both Pentagon officials and Congress have starting taking the phenomenon of so-called Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) -- more colloquially known as UFOs.
"For markets, the important thing about these developments is the increasingly fervent admissions by high-level security officials that while the phenomena are real, they remain unexplainable even to the most sophisticated militaries in the world."
I’ve mused this for ages. Long before that article. And there’s no clear market play that makes sense to me. It’s not like buying equity puts in Feb 2020, which was basically a sure thing.
The whole article is amazing. More here:
"So what are the consequences for markets?
"Award-winning investigative journalist and author of “In Plain Sight” Ross Coulthart has been investigating what officials really know about UAPs for years. One of the biggest concerns among those in the know, he says, was the potential economic impact on markets if the scale of uncertainty surrounding UAPs in the military became known. “Everyone talks about a potential for a massive collapse in the world economy if this revelation is not handled properly,” he told the FT Alphaville.
"This applies whether the technologies are human or non-human, since both scenarios are highly disruptive."
Highly disruptive. Yes, you could say that
If the aliens are here and wanted to talk to us, they would have talked to us.
As they seem to have no desire to interact with us (assuming they are here), then I fail to see why it should have any impact on the markets, except in that it will be excellent for makers of advanced sensor equipment.
You don't think the revelation that we are being visited by super-powerful alien forces with incredible technology with opaque intent yet keen to observe us might not be a tiny bit destabilising? As in, people might want to hide all their money under the bed for several decades as they weep with nameless dread? No?
No.
Because literally nothing will have changed.
As above. I basically agree. There’s a small percent for whom this would be profound but I’d wager a larger proportion of them are already thinking about this. Most don’t care unless it directly impacts them.
I completely disagree. I believe it would - will? - cause convulsions on a civilisational scale
What would it do to the great religions, for a start?
That euphonium-sized probe is certainly going to cause a few convulsions.
I missed this remarkable FT article on the economic/market implications of UAPs
"What’s curious, then, is the degree to which markets have thus far ignored what is becoming the transformation of one of the greatest unknown unknowns of all time into a known unknown.
"We are, of course, talking about the growing seriousness with which both Pentagon officials and Congress have starting taking the phenomenon of so-called Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) -- more colloquially known as UFOs.
"For markets, the important thing about these developments is the increasingly fervent admissions by high-level security officials that while the phenomena are real, they remain unexplainable even to the most sophisticated militaries in the world."
I’ve mused this for ages. Long before that article. And there’s no clear market play that makes sense to me. It’s not like buying equity puts in Feb 2020, which was basically a sure thing.
The whole article is amazing. More here:
"So what are the consequences for markets?
"Award-winning investigative journalist and author of “In Plain Sight” Ross Coulthart has been investigating what officials really know about UAPs for years. One of the biggest concerns among those in the know, he says, was the potential economic impact on markets if the scale of uncertainty surrounding UAPs in the military became known. “Everyone talks about a potential for a massive collapse in the world economy if this revelation is not handled properly,” he told the FT Alphaville.
"This applies whether the technologies are human or non-human, since both scenarios are highly disruptive."
Highly disruptive. Yes, you could say that
If the aliens are here and wanted to talk to us, they would have talked to us.
As they seem to have no desire to interact with us (assuming they are here), then I fail to see why it should have any impact on the markets, except in that it will be excellent for makers of advanced sensor equipment.
You don't think the revelation that we are being visited by super-powerful alien forces with incredible technology with opaque intent yet keen to observe us might not be a tiny bit destabilising? As in, people might want to hide all their money under the bed for several decades as they weep with nameless dread? No?
No.
Because literally nothing will have changed.
As above. I basically agree. There’s a small percent for whom this would be profound but I’d wager a larger proportion of them are already thinking about this. Most don’t care unless it directly impacts them.
I completely disagree. I believe it would - will? - cause convulsions on a civilisational scale
What would it do to the great religions, for a start?
The existence of gay people was way more existential for "the great religions" than aliens would be. They've coped with a lot since Copernicus, and they'd cope with this.
On topic, Truss ahead of Sunak by 24 points feels about right to me. It will probably narrow a bit over the course of the campaign, but she'll probably win 55:45 or thereabouts.
I missed this remarkable FT article on the economic/market implications of UAPs
"What’s curious, then, is the degree to which markets have thus far ignored what is becoming the transformation of one of the greatest unknown unknowns of all time into a known unknown.
"We are, of course, talking about the growing seriousness with which both Pentagon officials and Congress have starting taking the phenomenon of so-called Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) -- more colloquially known as UFOs.
"For markets, the important thing about these developments is the increasingly fervent admissions by high-level security officials that while the phenomena are real, they remain unexplainable even to the most sophisticated militaries in the world."
I’ve mused this for ages. Long before that article. And there’s no clear market play that makes sense to me. It’s not like buying equity puts in Feb 2020, which was basically a sure thing.
The whole article is amazing. More here:
"So what are the consequences for markets?
"Award-winning investigative journalist and author of “In Plain Sight” Ross Coulthart has been investigating what officials really know about UAPs for years. One of the biggest concerns among those in the know, he says, was the potential economic impact on markets if the scale of uncertainty surrounding UAPs in the military became known. “Everyone talks about a potential for a massive collapse in the world economy if this revelation is not handled properly,” he told the FT Alphaville.
"This applies whether the technologies are human or non-human, since both scenarios are highly disruptive."
Highly disruptive. Yes, you could say that
If the aliens are here and wanted to talk to us, they would have talked to us.
As they seem to have no desire to interact with us (assuming they are here), then I fail to see why it should have any impact on the markets, except in that it will be excellent for makers of advanced sensor equipment.
You don't think the revelation that we are being visited by super-powerful alien forces with incredible technology with opaque intent yet keen to observe us might not be a tiny bit destabilising? As in, people might want to hide all their money under the bed for several decades as they weep with nameless dread? No?
No.
Because literally nothing will have changed.
As above. I basically agree. There’s a small percent for whom this would be profound but I’d wager a larger proportion of them are already thinking about this. Most don’t care unless it directly impacts them.
I completely disagree. I believe it would - will? - cause convulsions on a civilisational scale
What would it do to the great religions, for a start?
If you believe Scientologists we were all originally extraterrestrials
Anyway, Liz Truss is the John McDonnell of the Tory party it seems. He wanted to borrow to invest, which had a sort of sense. She wants to borrow to hand money over to taxpayers who are the relatively better off in society, by definition.
Neither she nor Sunak have any plan for how to help the poorest who face real problems now and even more serious ones this winter. Nor any plan to improve productivity which is at the heart of Britain's poor economic performance since the financial crisis, a period during which the Tories have been in power for all but 2 years. Nor any plan to make life better for the young who face usurious student loan interest rates and difficulties in finding affordable housing.
But, hey, tax cuts = growth, apparently.
Which may just cut it for a couple of years. Debt laden boom. Election. Victory. But the hole the Tories are digging is getting closer to the molten core with every spadeful.
Alternatively the Laffer Curve works, cutting taxes from their obscenely high rate leads to economic growth which cuts the deficit and the problem is resolved.
People want to pretend taxes are low in this country rather than at an all time high. They can and should perhaps go higher on those living on unearned incomes, but otherwise people are getting squeezed until the pips squeak already. Cutting taxes leading to more development leading to more tax revenues is sound economics.
Well yes. That's another way of saying what I'm saying just put far more positively. Public services are still falling apart though.
So cut taxes so we're not throttling the economy, so that the economy grows, so that we have more revenues, so that we can invest in public services.
We are about to develop true AI (as I have, ahem, been saying for a while). This means civilisations out there which are AI are now taking a keen interest in our new GPT-baby, the way dogs particularly check out other dogs, or teens pay attention to teens
My guess is that we are about 10-15 years from AI being able to write better than any human, and that is the end of literature as we know it. Ditto much music, art, and the rest
I'm almost glad I'm nearer the end of my knapping career than the beginning
China (and Russia?) have developed ultra-impressive aerospace tech that is so advanced it will APPEAR like classic sci-fi flying saucers. Therefore to get people/soldiers/pilots to report sightings of these things to the Pentagon the stigma about UFOs has to be removed, so people aren't embarrassed
Interesting. And here it is seriously discussed by US weapons experts
We are about to develop true AI (as I have, ahem, been saying for a while). This means civilisations out there which are AI are now taking a keen interest in our new GPT-baby, the way dogs particularly check out other dogs, or teens pay attention to teens
I missed this remarkable FT article on the economic/market implications of UAPs
"What’s curious, then, is the degree to which markets have thus far ignored what is becoming the transformation of one of the greatest unknown unknowns of all time into a known unknown.
"We are, of course, talking about the growing seriousness with which both Pentagon officials and Congress have starting taking the phenomenon of so-called Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) -- more colloquially known as UFOs.
"For markets, the important thing about these developments is the increasingly fervent admissions by high-level security officials that while the phenomena are real, they remain unexplainable even to the most sophisticated militaries in the world."
I’ve mused this for ages. Long before that article. And there’s no clear market play that makes sense to me. It’s not like buying equity puts in Feb 2020, which was basically a sure thing.
The whole article is amazing. More here:
"So what are the consequences for markets?
"Award-winning investigative journalist and author of “In Plain Sight” Ross Coulthart has been investigating what officials really know about UAPs for years. One of the biggest concerns among those in the know, he says, was the potential economic impact on markets if the scale of uncertainty surrounding UAPs in the military became known. “Everyone talks about a potential for a massive collapse in the world economy if this revelation is not handled properly,” he told the FT Alphaville.
"This applies whether the technologies are human or non-human, since both scenarios are highly disruptive."
Highly disruptive. Yes, you could say that
If the aliens are here and wanted to talk to us, they would have talked to us.
As they seem to have no desire to interact with us (assuming they are here), then I fail to see why it should have any impact on the markets, except in that it will be excellent for makers of advanced sensor equipment.
You don't think the revelation that we are being visited by super-powerful alien forces with incredible technology with opaque intent yet keen to observe us might not be a tiny bit destabilising? As in, people might want to hide all their money under the bed for several decades as they weep with nameless dread? No?
No.
Because literally nothing will have changed.
As above. I basically agree. There’s a small percent for whom this would be profound but I’d wager a larger proportion of them are already thinking about this. Most don’t care unless it directly impacts them.
I completely disagree. I believe it would - will? - cause convulsions on a civilisational scale
What would it do to the great religions, for a start?
If you believe Scientologists we were all originally extraterrestrials
@Leon can trace his paternal line back to Krugon the 3rd from Andromeda P2341
We are about to develop true AI (as I have, ahem, been saying for a while). This means civilisations out there which are AI are now taking a keen interest in our new GPT-baby, the way dogs particularly check out other dogs, or teens pay attention to teens
Anyway, Liz Truss is the John McDonnell of the Tory party it seems. He wanted to borrow to invest, which had a sort of sense. She wants to borrow to hand money over to taxpayers who are the relatively better off in society, by definition.
Neither she nor Sunak have any plan for how to help the poorest who face real problems now and even more serious ones this winter. Nor any plan to improve productivity which is at the heart of Britain's poor economic performance since the financial crisis, a period during which the Tories have been in power for all but 2 years. Nor any plan to make life better for the young who face usurious student loan interest rates and difficulties in finding affordable housing.
But, hey, tax cuts = growth, apparently.
Which may just cut it for a couple of years. Debt laden boom. Election. Victory. But the hole the Tories are digging is getting closer to the molten core with every spadeful.
Alternatively the Laffer Curve works, cutting taxes from their obscenely high rate leads to economic growth which cuts the deficit and the problem is resolved.
People want to pretend taxes are low in this country rather than at an all time high. They can and should perhaps go higher on those living on unearned incomes, but otherwise people are getting squeezed until the pips squeak already. Cutting taxes leading to more development leading to more tax revenues is sound economics.
Well yes. That's another way of saying what I'm saying just put far more positively. Public services are still falling apart though.
So cut taxes so we're not throttling the economy, so that the economy grows, so that we have more revenues, so that we can invest in public services.
How do taxes throttle the economy?
Letting people accumulate wealth they can never spend throttles the economy.
We are about to develop true AI (as I have, ahem, been saying for a while). This means civilisations out there which are AI are now taking a keen interest in our new GPT-baby, the way dogs particularly check out other dogs, or teens pay attention to teens
My guess is that we are about 10-15 years from AI being able to write better than any human, and that is the end of literature as we know it. Ditto much music, art, and the rest
I'm almost glad I'm nearer the end of my knapping career than the beginning
I noted the other day that DALLE-2 now runs on a credit system whose output you own the IP and are free to monetarise.
Anyway, Liz Truss is the John McDonnell of the Tory party it seems. He wanted to borrow to invest, which had a sort of sense. She wants to borrow to hand money over to taxpayers who are the relatively better off in society, by definition.
Neither she nor Sunak have any plan for how to help the poorest who face real problems now and even more serious ones this winter. Nor any plan to improve productivity which is at the heart of Britain's poor economic performance since the financial crisis, a period during which the Tories have been in power for all but 2 years. Nor any plan to make life better for the young who face usurious student loan interest rates and difficulties in finding affordable housing.
But, hey, tax cuts = growth, apparently.
Which may just cut it for a couple of years. Debt laden boom. Election. Victory. But the hole the Tories are digging is getting closer to the molten core with every spadeful.
Alternatively the Laffer Curve works, cutting taxes from their obscenely high rate leads to economic growth which cuts the deficit and the problem is resolved.
People want to pretend taxes are low in this country rather than at an all time high. They can and should perhaps go higher on those living on unearned incomes, but otherwise people are getting squeezed until the pips squeak already. Cutting taxes leading to more development leading to more tax revenues is sound economics.
Well yes. That's another way of saying what I'm saying just put far more positively. Public services are still falling apart though.
So cut taxes so we're not throttling the economy, so that the economy grows, so that we have more revenues, so that we can invest in public services.
Part 1+2 is a fair enough debateable argument. Part 3 replace with higher dividends, lower investment, more assets offshore and more perks for elderly home owners. What about Liz Truss makes you think that wouldn't be the outcome?
We are about to develop true AI (as I have, ahem, been saying for a while). This means civilisations out there which are AI are now taking a keen interest in our new GPT-baby, the way dogs particularly check out other dogs, or teens pay attention to teens
My guess is that we are about 10-15 years from AI being able to write better than any human, and that is the end of literature as we know it. Ditto much music, art, and the rest
I'm almost glad I'm nearer the end of my knapping career than the beginning
I noted the other day that DALLE-2 now runs on a credit system whose output you own the IP and are free to monetarise.
So now you just need to put a Python script together to feed snippets from the works of Shakespeare to DALLE-2 and sell the resulting images as NFTs.
Anyway, Liz Truss is the John McDonnell of the Tory party it seems. He wanted to borrow to invest, which had a sort of sense. She wants to borrow to hand money over to taxpayers who are the relatively better off in society, by definition.
Neither she nor Sunak have any plan for how to help the poorest who face real problems now and even more serious ones this winter. Nor any plan to improve productivity which is at the heart of Britain's poor economic performance since the financial crisis, a period during which the Tories have been in power for all but 2 years. Nor any plan to make life better for the young who face usurious student loan interest rates and difficulties in finding affordable housing.
But, hey, tax cuts = growth, apparently.
Which may just cut it for a couple of years. Debt laden boom. Election. Victory. But the hole the Tories are digging is getting closer to the molten core with every spadeful.
Alternatively the Laffer Curve works, cutting taxes from their obscenely high rate leads to economic growth which cuts the deficit and the problem is resolved.
People want to pretend taxes are low in this country rather than at an all time high. They can and should perhaps go higher on those living on unearned incomes, but otherwise people are getting squeezed until the pips squeak already. Cutting taxes leading to more development leading to more tax revenues is sound economics.
Well yes. That's another way of saying what I'm saying just put far more positively. Public services are still falling apart though.
So cut taxes so we're not throttling the economy, so that the economy grows, so that we have more revenues, so that we can invest in public services.
How do taxes throttle the economy?
Letting people accumulate wealth they can never spend throttles the economy.
If people can't keep their wealth, they're inclined to work less.
We are about to develop true AI (as I have, ahem, been saying for a while). This means civilisations out there which are AI are now taking a keen interest in our new GPT-baby, the way dogs particularly check out other dogs, or teens pay attention to teens
"The conclusion of the US congressional hearing on UAPs, formerly known as UFOs, is an opportunity to take stock of where matters stand on a question that has captivated humankind for centuries: Have we been visited by aliens or not?
"On this question, the hearing was by no means definitive. As unsatisfying as that may be, we did learn a few things — not the least of which is how to sharpen our thinking about this subject.
"The first and most important lesson is that many cases of UAPs, which stands for Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, cannot be explained by observer error, at least not in any simple way. There do seem to be vehicles (“phenomena”?) going many times faster than US military craft, stopping and turning on a dime, showing no visible signs of propulsion and operating in ways that appear to violate standard understandings of aerodynamics."
.... It goes on:
"Don’t expect more details anytime soon. Nevertheless, it’s safe to say — and recent conversations with knowledgeable people have led me to believe — that the US government has standard radar and satellite evidence of these phenomena. If these moving vehicles were pure phantoms, not showing up in any other sensor readings, why would the government have held these hearings in the first place? It would have been easier to simply dismiss UAP reports and move on.
There are popular YouTube videos by Mick West, a prominent debunker of pseudoscience, suggesting that Navy videos of UAPs flying at hypersonic speeds reflect human and camera errors. Yet the US military and intelligence sources are not endorsing that hypothesis, even though it could make their lives easier, and so it seems unlikely. (Recall that, several decades ago, experts exposed Yuri Geller’s “magic tricks” rather quickly.)"
I think this is it. Disclosure. I am changing my mind again. The US Establishment REALLY believes there is a high chance we are being visited by aliens. Incredible
Anyway, Liz Truss is the John McDonnell of the Tory party it seems. He wanted to borrow to invest, which had a sort of sense. She wants to borrow to hand money over to taxpayers who are the relatively better off in society, by definition.
Neither she nor Sunak have any plan for how to help the poorest who face real problems now and even more serious ones this winter. Nor any plan to improve productivity which is at the heart of Britain's poor economic performance since the financial crisis, a period during which the Tories have been in power for all but 2 years. Nor any plan to make life better for the young who face usurious student loan interest rates and difficulties in finding affordable housing.
But, hey, tax cuts = growth, apparently.
Which may just cut it for a couple of years. Debt laden boom. Election. Victory. But the hole the Tories are digging is getting closer to the molten core with every spadeful.
Alternatively the Laffer Curve works, cutting taxes from their obscenely high rate leads to economic growth which cuts the deficit and the problem is resolved.
People want to pretend taxes are low in this country rather than at an all time high. They can and should perhaps go higher on those living on unearned incomes, but otherwise people are getting squeezed until the pips squeak already. Cutting taxes leading to more development leading to more tax revenues is sound economics.
Well yes. That's another way of saying what I'm saying just put far more positively. Public services are still falling apart though.
So cut taxes so we're not throttling the economy, so that the economy grows, so that we have more revenues, so that we can invest in public services.
How do taxes throttle the economy?
Letting people accumulate wealth they can never spend throttles the economy.
If people can't keep their wealth, they're inclined to work less.
I disagree. If people want to maintain their lifestyle they'll work more (if they can). Al lot of people of course have little influence over how much they can flex their work or earnings.
I missed this remarkable FT article on the economic/market implications of UAPs
"What’s curious, then, is the degree to which markets have thus far ignored what is becoming the transformation of one of the greatest unknown unknowns of all time into a known unknown.
"We are, of course, talking about the growing seriousness with which both Pentagon officials and Congress have starting taking the phenomenon of so-called Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) -- more colloquially known as UFOs.
"For markets, the important thing about these developments is the increasingly fervent admissions by high-level security officials that while the phenomena are real, they remain unexplainable even to the most sophisticated militaries in the world."
I’ve mused this for ages. Long before that article. And there’s no clear market play that makes sense to me. It’s not like buying equity puts in Feb 2020, which was basically a sure thing.
The whole article is amazing. More here:
"So what are the consequences for markets?
"Award-winning investigative journalist and author of “In Plain Sight” Ross Coulthart has been investigating what officials really know about UAPs for years. One of the biggest concerns among those in the know, he says, was the potential economic impact on markets if the scale of uncertainty surrounding UAPs in the military became known. “Everyone talks about a potential for a massive collapse in the world economy if this revelation is not handled properly,” he told the FT Alphaville.
"This applies whether the technologies are human or non-human, since both scenarios are highly disruptive."
Highly disruptive. Yes, you could say that
If the aliens are here and wanted to talk to us, they would have talked to us.
As they seem to have no desire to interact with us (assuming they are here), then I fail to see why it should have any impact on the markets, except in that it will be excellent for makers of advanced sensor equipment.
You don't think the revelation that we are being visited by super-powerful alien forces with incredible technology with opaque intent yet keen to observe us might not be a tiny bit destabilising? As in, people might want to hide all their money under the bed for several decades as they weep with nameless dread? No?
No.
Because literally nothing will have changed.
As above. I basically agree. There’s a small percent for whom this would be profound but I’d wager a larger proportion of them are already thinking about this. Most don’t care unless it directly impacts them.
I completely disagree. I believe it would - will? - cause convulsions on a civilisational scale
What would it do to the great religions, for a start?
That euphonium-sized probe is certainly going to cause a few convulsions.
I'm calling it: Truss will be PM longer than Cameron.
Please show your workings out.
Assuming of course each prior step is fulfilled then:
75% Truss becomes PM 95% Truss survives until next election 50% Truss wins next election. 80% Truss survives from winning next election until 2028 crossover date versus Cameron.
75 * 95 * 50 * 80 = 28.5% chance in my eyes. Though the 50% is my biggest uncertainty.
Given recent history the 80% looks way too high.
That 80% is predicated upon the scenario of her winning the next election. First term election winners typically last out a term, the exceptions are the exception and not the norm.
Yes Boris hasn't, but that's quite exceptional. If you count May as an election winner (she didn't get a majority) hers were very special circumstances as well
Before Boris you have Cameron, Blair, Major, Thatcher, Wilson and Heath who all served out their first term after winning their first election. Prior to May (if you count her as a winner) or Boris (if you don't) you need to look all the way back to Macmillan to find the last leader not to finish their first term after winning an election.
In the old days, though, it was much harder to remove PMs. Nowadays it's a pot of piss: you just need a few letters and a VoNC.
So you say and yet its only happened once in the past nearly sixty years for a first time election majority winning PM (and if Truss fails to get a majority, she's almost certainly out anyway, so the 80% is predicated upon only if she wins one).
If its so easy to remove a PM how come Boris was the first time a first term majority-winning PM was removed since Macmillan?
It is only in the very recent past that backbench MPs have had a formal process for removing Prime Ministers at all - and I don't think any process existed at all for Labour in the past.
So your real sample size is tiny.
Except no PM has actually been removed via a formal process. They've always been removed via informal processes.
Boris and May both survived their formal VONC and were theoretically "safe for a year" but were removed anyway by an informal process.
Just as Macmillan and Eden before them were both removed via informal processes too, who are the only other first-time winners who have been removed post-war.
Thatcher too. She passed the second vote but not decisively, she was then "advised" to resign later that night,
I missed this remarkable FT article on the economic/market implications of UAPs
"What’s curious, then, is the degree to which markets have thus far ignored what is becoming the transformation of one of the greatest unknown unknowns of all time into a known unknown.
"We are, of course, talking about the growing seriousness with which both Pentagon officials and Congress have starting taking the phenomenon of so-called Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) -- more colloquially known as UFOs.
"For markets, the important thing about these developments is the increasingly fervent admissions by high-level security officials that while the phenomena are real, they remain unexplainable even to the most sophisticated militaries in the world."
How much of an investment in tin foil are you advocating?
Just enough to invest in a hat, or do you need more than that?
The PB Nitwits will go on chortling about "aliens" right up to the moment the inter-galactic lizard-folk shove probes the size of euphoniums up their terrified, quivering butt-holes
@TSE has already watched a film about that happening to a Stepmom.
Comments
Sure - get some inspiration from your party's history - but a real leader should be setting out a view of what they want to achieve which is about today and the future. They should be comfortable in themselves not constantly looking back to see what Mummy would say.
There is something a bit tragic about the way the Tory party often comes across as an adult who's left home but still goes home to Mum at weekends to get his washing done, to show off and get parental approval.
Cameron may have tried to be the exception but his policy turned out to be Thatcher-style austerity.
https://pigeonsarentreal.co.uk/
Brexit is about taking back control, so we can make our own choices.
Having control doesn't mean you make good or bad choices, its simply giving you the choice. You can choose to make good choices, or you can choose to make bad ones, but its your choice.
Of course you and I can disagree with each other in a lively debate as to which choices are good, or which choices are bad. That's entirely acceptable and democratic.
Brexit was never a magic wand that would make all our problems get worse, or get better. It is no more than returning to us the tools to make our own decision. What we do with those tools, with that control? Well that's up to us. All of us.
The generational inequality we now have was created by Blair and Brown and then increased by Cameron and Clegg.
So @williamglenn has a point. Some Tories thought they'd committed seppuku when they made Thatcher leader
If you search for that you'll probably find some of the details.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distant_Origin
75% Truss becomes PM
95% Truss survives until next election
50% Truss wins next election.
80% Truss survives from winning next election until 2028 crossover date versus Cameron.
75 * 95 * 50 * 80 = 28.5% chance in my eyes. Though the 50% is my biggest uncertainty.
On geology. Someone wrote a paper on this last year didnt they? There have been I think it was three episodes in the geological record of rapid increases in co2 of potential interest but they were more gradual than ours. We broke all records! The others likely have a natural explanation but not necessarily so.
A famous noun gave her a right fucking.
Her lover "Sir Gerund" was always tempted by the fucking.
The future PM is a fucking adjective.
"What’s curious, then, is the degree to which markets have thus far ignored what is becoming the transformation of one of the greatest unknown unknowns of all time into a known unknown.
"We are, of course, talking about the growing seriousness with which both Pentagon officials and Congress have starting taking the phenomenon of so-called Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) -- more colloquially known as UFOs.
"For markets, the important thing about these developments is the increasingly fervent admissions by high-level security officials that while the phenomena are real, they remain unexplainable even to the most sophisticated militaries in the world."
https://www.ft.com/content/800e4b4b-d7b0-4fe5-a1ad-2e7f7d4f1ce7
Factor ET into your investments, guys
a) could have an effect on the leadership race, and
b) is generally suppressed by injunctions, but
c) is known to a few...
Doesn't that slant the betting market unfairly?
Like most Macleods, I enjoyed it a lot.
"If the technologies are not human . . . this invites the even more significant question of whether those in possession of the tech are hostile or friendly.
"Both possibilities carry major repercussions for markets and humanity.
"On the friendly front, the opportunity to benefit from superior technologies and knowledge sharing, such as the chance to obtain zero-gravity or “free energy” systems, would be tantamount to a global wealth injection. But it could also court chaos by rendering existing fossil fuel assets even more stranded than they already are.
"On the hostile front, the worst case scenario doesn’t bear thinking.
"Though, as economist Paul Krugman once quipped, there could be a silver lining if efforts to defend humanity from a foreign alien invasion threat led to unseen levels of global collaboration and fast-tracked investment in defence technologies. He even joked it might be worth conducting a hoax to draw such effects in their own right.
"At a minimum, any serious revelation of a potentially hostile alien threat would put other existential threats we are facing in somewhat of a different context.
It’s worth noting there is at least one Wall Street product actively accounting for these risks: note the risk disclosure in the Procure Space ETF prospectus...."
AFAIR there is a fine layer of material all around the globe that can clearly be traced back to the nuclear bombs and nuclear experiments of the 40s and 50s, which is what defines the "Antropocene Era"
Just enough to invest in a hat, or do you need more than that?
"So what are the consequences for markets?
"Award-winning investigative journalist and author of “In Plain Sight” Ross Coulthart has been investigating what officials really know about UAPs for years. One of the biggest concerns among those in the know, he says, was the potential economic impact on markets if the scale of uncertainty surrounding UAPs in the military became known. “Everyone talks about a potential for a massive collapse in the world economy if this revelation is not handled properly,” he told the FT Alphaville.
"This applies whether the technologies are human or non-human, since both scenarios are highly disruptive."
Highly disruptive. Yes, you could say that
That was plenty under Boris. Because there was so much other stuff to go at. A general steer might be good.
As they seem to have no desire to interact with us (assuming they are here), then I fail to see why it should have any impact on the markets, except in that it will be excellent for makers of advanced sensor equipment.
That's almost the full length of the next Parliament, and if it looks like Truss will lose in 2029, then she probably will be evicted before the end of 2028. So, I'd reckon that's more like 50-60% than 80%.
Biden could give the speech this weekend. “We’re not alone. The skies and oceans are not just ours. We know little more than the extraordinary observed capabilities and we open our arms to everyone in the world (and odd it! to help us unlock this profound mystery in the name of peace and progress etc….”
Within a few weeks it would be back to Love Island and Test Match Special. The Pope would be doing his normal thing after a special sermon or two. Disney would look nervously at their MCU slate and hope it doesn’t mess their plans too much. And thats be it. It would change everything and nothing.
Yes Boris hasn't, but that's quite exceptional. If you count May as an election winner (she didn't get a majority) hers were very special circumstances as well
Before Boris you have Cameron, Blair, Major, Thatcher, Wilson and Heath who all served out their first term after winning their first election. Prior to May (if you count her as a winner) or Boris (if you don't) you need to look all the way back to Macmillan to find the last leader not to finish their first term after winning an election.
Because literally nothing will have changed.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/canada-us-ufo-nuclear-safety-b2108573.html
"Canada agrees to share intelligence on UFOs with US ‘given shared priority for nuclear safety’
‘The CNSC is committed to raising the issue with its United States counterpart and sharing any related information going forward,’ the letter read
In a letter released this week from Canada’s Natural Resources department, the signatories discuss the government’s position on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs) near nuclear facilities in the North American country.
“This is an important matter that my colleagues and I in the Natural Resources portfolio take very seriously,” Deputy Minister of Natural Resources John Hannaford said"
Isn't that Canada saying "Yes, the pesky aliens are buzzing our nuclear power stations"?!
This switching PMs mid-term without reference to the electorate is bad form and undemocratic imo.
Neither she nor Sunak have any plan for how to help the poorest who face real problems now and even more serious ones this winter. Nor any plan to improve productivity which is at the heart of Britain's poor economic performance since the financial crisis, a period during which the Tories have been in power for all but 2 years. Nor any plan to make life better for the young who face usurious student loan interest rates and difficulties in finding affordable housing.
But, hey, tax cuts = growth, apparently.
What would it do to the great religions, for a start?
https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/07/21/uvalde-and-the-deadly-consequences-of-safetyism/
-)
And so all good-natured, too.
If its so easy to remove a PM how come Boris was the first time a first term majority-winning PM was removed since Macmillan?
And that is all I will say.
China (and Russia?) have developed ultra-impressive aerospace tech that is so advanced it will APPEAR like classic sci-fi flying saucers. Therefore to get people/soldiers/pilots to report sightings of these things to the Pentagon the stigma about UFOs has to be removed, so people aren't embarrassed
Interesting. And here it is seriously discussed by US weapons experts
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/this-is-what-top-missile-defense-industry-chiefs-said-about-ufos
People want to pretend taxes are low in this country rather than at an all time high. They can and should perhaps go higher on those living on unearned incomes, but otherwise people are getting squeezed until the pips squeak already. Cutting taxes leading to more development leading to more tax revenues is sound economics.
So your real sample size is tiny.
On topic, Truss ahead of Sunak by 24 points feels about right to me. It will probably narrow a bit over the course of the campaign, but she'll probably win 55:45 or thereabouts.
We are about to develop true AI (as I have, ahem, been saying for a while). This means civilisations out there which are AI are now taking a keen interest in our new GPT-baby, the way dogs particularly check out other dogs, or teens pay attention to teens
https://thedebrief.org/could-uap-have-kinship-to-our-ai-systems/
Otherwise, I don't see what the effect on markets will be? You might even argue that the stock market will roar because the little green men are coming to save us from climate change by handing us fusion power on a stick.
Of course, though, this explanation could still be "true", even if some of the UAPs are much more mysterious than that, and non-human etc
America will want its soldiers to be alert and candid about what they see, not terrified of mockery. Makes sense
Boris and May both survived their formal VONC and were theoretically "safe for a year" but were removed anyway by an informal process.
Just as Macmillan and Eden before them were both removed via informal processes too, who are the only other first-time winners who have been removed post-war.
https://www.theverge.com/c/23194235/ai-fiction-writing-amazon-kindle-sudowrite-jasper
Public services are still falling apart though.
Do you really think.those on unearned incomes will suffer? That isn't part of the plan AFAICS? Nor is more "development".
I'm almost glad I'm nearer the end of my knapping career than the beginning
OPINION BUSINESS WORLD
Putin and the UFO Sightings
The debate over UAP may herald not alien visitors but destabilizing new weapons systems.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/putin-and-the-ufo-puzzle-uap-nuclear-weapons-dni-aliens-military-drones-11657655291?mod=trending_now_opn_5
"Like a good bullshitter, it’s better at form and style than substance."
Are we sure the PM isn't actually a robot built by the lizard people from outer-space and using GPT-3 to produce output?
Letting people accumulate wealth they can never spend throttles the economy.
Part 3 replace with higher dividends, lower investment, more assets offshore and more perks for elderly home owners.
What about Liz Truss makes you think that wouldn't be the outcome?
Makes the May Bot seem human.
Good luck Tories!!! LOL
"The conclusion of the US congressional hearing on UAPs, formerly known as UFOs, is an opportunity to take stock of where matters stand on a question that has captivated humankind for centuries: Have we been visited by aliens or not?
"On this question, the hearing was by no means definitive. As unsatisfying as that may be, we did learn a few things — not the least of which is how to sharpen our thinking about this subject.
"The first and most important lesson is that many cases of UAPs, which stands for Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, cannot be explained by observer error, at least not in any simple way. There do seem to be vehicles (“phenomena”?) going many times faster than US military craft, stopping and turning on a dime, showing no visible signs of propulsion and operating in ways that appear to violate standard understandings of aerodynamics."
.... It goes on:
"Don’t expect more details anytime soon. Nevertheless, it’s safe to say — and recent conversations with knowledgeable people have led me to believe — that the US government has standard radar and satellite evidence of these phenomena. If these moving vehicles were pure phantoms, not showing up in any other sensor readings, why would the government have held these hearings in the first place? It would have been easier to simply dismiss UAP reports and move on.
There are popular YouTube videos by Mick West, a prominent debunker of pseudoscience, suggesting that Navy videos of UAPs flying at hypersonic speeds reflect human and camera errors. Yet the US military and intelligence sources are not endorsing that hypothesis, even though it could make their lives easier, and so it seems unlikely. (Recall that, several decades ago, experts exposed Yuri Geller’s “magic tricks” rather quickly.)"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/what-are-the-chances-weve-been-visited-by-aliens/2022/05/25/ca423830-dc33-11ec-bc35-a91d0a94923b_story.html
I think this is it. Disclosure. I am changing my mind again. The US Establishment REALLY believes there is a high chance we are being visited by aliens. Incredible
https://www.indy100.com/science-tech/russia-ufo-sighting-research-pilot
https://www.indy100.com/science-tech/ufo-uap-canada-usa-aliens
Sunak 3
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/politics-betting-2378961
https://www.indy100.com/science-tech/china-alien-sighting-civilization-ufos
"We saw them first"