Dev n Corn seem to have cornered the market in wind.
Would be interesting to see that with the locations/sizes of wind farms included. The huge boom in North Sea windfarms is obviously great, but I think it means that our wind capacity is particularly concentrated there.
It's why it can make sense to put wind turbines up in places with less wind on average, because often those places will happen to be windy when the more windy places aren't.
Been perusing the thread throughout the day without being able to comment. Obviously some fairly major stories going around today with the knives being out for Andrew Bailey. I wasn't a fan of his when he was appointed but I'm not sure he's the primary person to blame for the current economic malaise. The prime cause of inflation is high energy prices. So what are we doing to bring those down? The government has talked a lot about supporting people with their bills but what about the basic price of gas? Other European countries seem to have been a lot more proactive on this front. Our gas prices have just shot up again. Is that Bailey's fault? Inflation is not just a matter of monetary policy. I'm sure they were behind the curve on rates but so too were others.
I also found the Guardian editorial deeply unconvincing on this. They seemed to think the Bank of England's desire to raise rates put them on the side of business rather than workers. I'm not sure I fully understand this but if workers benefit from low interest rates presumably the bank has been on their side since 2009? And interest rates of 3% when inflation is over 10% is hardly eye watering? If not now, when (would you raise rates?). The market may not believe the bank when they say they don't expect rates to rise much further but in time surely things will calm down. How much of that nervousness remains due to Truss and Kwarteng?
Some comment from James E on UKPR2 re- today's Redfield & Wilton poll - 'There are some freakish-looking cross breaks in the tables behind this poll.
R&W have unusally high LD vote retention from 2019 (70%), with 8% of 2019LDs going to the Tories and 16% for Labour. Several recent polls have shown Lab taking more of this vote than the LDs . The age cross-breaks show Labour doing better with 45-64 year olds than with 18-24s. Also, the regional cross-breaks show the Tories with a substantial lead in the North-East, but all other regions and nations back Labour. In fact the combined South of England samples show Labour 18 points ahead, meaning that this poll is the first (ever?) to show Labour faring better in the South (outside London) than for GB as a whole.
This clearly isn't the real position - all other polls show the Tories faring better in the South than GB as a whole - but currently only by about 10 points, typically, rather than the 20-25 points which has been the norm for the past 40 years or more. '
Dev n Corn seem to have cornered the market in wind.
Would be interesting to see that with the locations/sizes of wind farms included. The huge boom in North Sea windfarms is obviously great, but I think it means that our wind capacity is particularly concentrated there.
It's why it can make sense to put wind turbines up in places with less wind on average, because often those places will happen to be windy when the more windy places aren't.
What's interesting playing with those graphs is how windy the Irish Sea is compared to mainland in the forthcoming week. Often windier than the North Sea. No idea how typical or atypical that is.
Rarely hear about developments in the Irish Sea? Is it getting exploited in the same way for wind farms and if not, is there a reason (geographical, shipping or otherwise) why not?
I'm not convinced house prices are going to drop too much with hugely negative real rates.
I'll stick with my 15% prediction for London.
There’s been a lot of building around here (Ealing) over the last few years. It feels like the supply will increase greatly, and I could see a big fall in prices. Probably a good thing overall.
Yes, defo a good thing overall - but better if it happens gradually and relatively with (other) prices & earnings inflation doing most of the work.
In any case 15% absolute is pretty big. Do you mean a lot more than that? That would surprise me actually.
No, but 20% wouldn’t surprise me either.
But each significant fall is likely to be met by an increase in first-time buyers at the point that they realise they can afford to buy. I.e. they won’t hang about for possible further falls.
Tough times, that's for sure. I can't recall when we last had all 3 of rampant inflation, terrible public finances, and a looming long recession.
2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away.
Hmm not really like now. But you've managed to say "Gordon Brown" so job done there.
Its different to now, but it had all 3 that you mentioned. Over 11% inflation on some measures, over 4% in RPI, plus terrible public finances and a looming long recession.
I don't excuse Tory Chancellors for sticking to Brown's fraudulent scam that housing is somehow not real inflation, I've been critical on the Tories for that too for a long time. It suited Osborne et al to pretend somehow that inflation was lower than it really was by using Brown's dodgy data and the result was the Bank of England used dodgy data for their mandate.
I'd say you want housing costs (rent and rent equivalents for owners) in there not house prices.
Anyway "Brown's fraudulent scam" - well done again. But we'll stop now, I think, so you can't keep crowbarring Gordophobic abuse into the chat. Enough's enough. I won't be an enabler.
I can understand why from your point of view you don't like the fact that the current failed policies are those of the last 20 years, not just the last 12.
That is desperate - you must feel a bit funny after psyching up to say it.
And yet it's true - the consensus of the last 20 years is obvious if you're paying attention. Not everything is party politics.
Many consensuses have contributed to where we are today. Eg I'd pick out the one that said free markets can judge risk v reward, but there are loads. You've just picked a timeframe to get a bit of New Labour in there and exclude Thatcherism.
Not really - I've picked the timeframe from the biggest shift that I can remember - from Clarkism (kept on by Brown for the first term) to Brown/Osborne/Sunakism. I don't have many political memories before 1990.
Osborne was continuity Brown? That's an unusual take.
In areas like "inflation" (pretend it doesn't exist by excluding it where it does) etc absolutely Osborne was continuity Brown and I've criticised him for that.
It suited Osborne's interests to continue with Brown's scam.
"Brown's scam" - you are at it again! It's a good job he's not a protected characteristic or you'd be up before the Beak.
You can't help yourself, can you? You claimed you weren't going to engage, but here you are trying to claim that Brown rewriting inflation to exclude inflation in house costs wasn't a scam. It was. A scam that Ishmael sought to justify by suggesting that it was a good way to rip off those with indexed linked assets. A scam Osborne etc continued with.
Housing is a cost, not solely an asset. It is in fact the largest cost of living on average, more than electricity, or gas, or cars, or even food.
Any inflation figure that excludes the largest cost of living from its data is fake.
But the point is how to include it in official inflation. Do you use some sort of rental equivalent or do you just stick in the gross asset price change? The 2nd feels wrong - as per your exchange with OLB - but agree or not it's certainly not a "scam" to *not* do that. You're only saying so because of your Gordophobia, which you do suffer from and I'm being totally serious in saying this. You're a Gordophobe. You are simply incapable of assessing his record with any degree of accuracy or fairness. It renders your punditry on him next to worthless. Which is a shame since it's both passionate and copious.
Second hand cars and inferred prices are excluded from CPI.
Houses could follow the same principle, a new build home is purely cost not anyone's asset and if the cost goes higher then that simply means the cost of purchasing has gone higher, just as if a new car cost goes higher.
Either way, excluding housing costs because that reduces the headline figure is a scam. I say the same about Osborne sticking with the scam, or Ishmael saying its a good thing because it defrauds people with indexed linked payments etc as if that's something I'd view as a positive?
Your weird Gordophilia that anything Brown did can't have any downsides is just odd. Forget Brown, rewriting inflation from including housing in RPIX to excluding it in CPI was plain dodgy data and has meant inflation has been wrongly and fallaciously claimed to be low for years.
In 1997 the average new build house price was £71,892 In 2022 the average new build house price is £292,773
Yet we're supposed to think that a change in cost from £71,892 to £292,773 is not a factor in inflation?
Only a dishonest fool could suggest such a thing.
Hardly a "scam", though, to take the view that rental equivalent is a better inclusion to cost-of-living inflation for housing costs than gross asset price change.
Still, cars are a slightly better analogy than your previous bog roll so that's a win right there.
Not really, since a cost is a cost and it is what people paying the cost have to pay. But either way the rental equivalent isn't in CPI though, thus making it a ... scam.
According to OBR data housing makes up more than a quarter of household expenditure, yet housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels combined make up only 14% of the weighting of CPI. How can you justify that?
You don't need to do rent equivalent. You just do the average mortgage cost for the average house.
Or just the average cost of the average house. Or new ones, like cars.
Financing costs aren't done in CPI on car leases, or how much interest you pay on credit card purchases for your baked beans.
What weight would you put on house prices in your CPI-BR? Since buying a house isn't consumption it's hard to know how to calculate the weight. You couldn't use the share of consumption as you do for everything else.
Why is it not consumption? If you're paying for it, its a cost, even if you have a second hand asset at the end of it.
Weight it according to expenses as a proportion of expenditure for median or average households is the sensible solution, as opposed to homeowner households as is currently done. Indeed given that inflation is a sharper problem for those who have to pay housing as well as every other cost as opposed to those on the same income who live cost-free for housing, weighting it according to non-owners would make more sense than owners, but average is surely the only accurate choice?
Housing and energy is the highest expense for the average household, forming on OBR statistics 28-33% of household budgets. So it should be weighted 28-33% accordingly, instead home owner based CPI weights it combined to a meagre14%.
Telling households that inflation is low because housing, electricity, gas and water combined are only 14% of CPI when they actually account for 28-33% is false and misleading data.
How much of your house have you consumed this week then?
As much of it as I consumed my car, or my Laptop, or my Phone.
It kept a roof above my head and the wind and rain away which is its purpose and why it is the most expensive item in my budget.
You demolish your house and buy a new one every five years? No wonder you are composing Vogon poetry on the topic, as was aptly remarked yesterday.
The world is just one great big conspiracy to defraud Barty, and only a nimby scumbag would deny the fact.
Bellyflop of the month, though, thinking Brown changed inflation target from RPI with housing in it to CPI without, and being told the previous measure was RPIX, without housing in it. That stopped him in his tracks for half an hour but now he has found that RPIX includes the vat element of ground rent or some such shit while CPI doesn't, so he was right all along. Nimby Brown out to do Bart down.
And what he wants is a Heath Robinson arrangement anyway: put hpi into the inflation figures so the bank will notice and do something about it, when its primary effect will be an insane feedback loop simply increasing inflation. Instead of just giving the bank a separate, primary duty to control house prices.
You're full of shit. Housing always was in RPIX and I knew that even if you don't. Sorry if I was unable to respond to you within half an hour, I do have a life outside this website, but you were simply categorically wrong to think RPIX excludes housing costs in the same way CPI does.
Including HPI within inflation, weighted properly to what housing actually costs households, as happened until RPIX was dumped wouldn't be an insane feedback loop. Including MIPs instead of HPI would create a feedback loop which is why it very sensibly wasn't included in RPIX which I agree with. HPI and rent etc should take the full share of housing costs proportionately weighted to the average household budget not rate-sensitive MIPs.
Don't call me "full of shit," Bart. OPT you wrote
"2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away."
Has anyone ever been more bang to rights?
I was completely right. RPI does include housing.
RPIX excludes the MIP to avoid the feedback loop problem which is entirely sensible, but it still includes housing with housing depreciation etc in a way that CPI doesn't.
If you think housing = MIP alone you couldn't be more wrong.
But it wasn't what Gordo changed from, was it now? RPIX is not RPI. If you meant RPIX you would have said RPIX. The End.
Your problem is that you don't understand that HPI is a conceptually different thing from CPI or RPI. No matter how house prices balloon there is a limit to what people can afford to spend to house themselves, what with needing to eat stuff and fuel their cars etc. and not being on unlimited wages. So there is NO proxy for HPI which you can plug into the other indices which will make the BoE say Lawks, CPI is running at 500% all of a sudden, we must crash the market to get back on target. It doesn't happen because it just doesn't work that way, not because of skulduggery by Brown or Osborne or anyone else.
Don't be a pedantic ignoramus, RPIX is a form of RPI and the inflation figure has typically been referred to as RPI even if it was technically RPIX. And it includes house prices (via depreciation), even if it excludes MIP to avoid the feedback loop problem.
There is a limit to what people can afford to spend to house themselves, which is why I didn't propose replacing CPI with HPI, but rather weighting it properly, but it is not just a part of household expenditure but on average the biggest part of household expenditure which is why it should be there and properly weighted. Are you familiar with the concept of weighting and understand what it means?
If housing and energy make up 28% of household expenditure, it should be weighted to 28% within CPI, not down-weighted to half that. If for some reason housing and energy proportionately cost less in an era of high-inflation, then the weightings should adapt and adjust accordingly. Unfortunately since CPI for no good reason excluded housing inflation and downweights housing and energy to half its real weighting, that makes CPI data completely flawed.
But how about you say what it should be instead? If housing and energy are 28% of expenditure on average, then should housing and energy in your eyes be weighted to
A: 14% B: 28%
It makes no difference. CPIH is 31 or 32% housing costs. Look at the graph here
Can we have a nice chat about how Cambridge is really part of the North instead?
Well, it has a 'North' station, but no 'South' one - yet.
Is that the one which tells you on the destination board that you've arrived at a the seat of a mighty institution of research and teaching?
Although it somehow forgets to mention the University of Cambridge is also based there.
The U of C or a college or two may have contributed to the ARU marketing campaign because it lets almost everyone who arrives at the railway station on business connected with the U of C feel they're in on a private joke.
I'm not convinced house prices are going to drop too much with hugely negative real rates.
I'll stick with my 15% prediction for London.
There’s been a lot of building around here (Ealing) over the last few years. It feels like the supply will increase greatly, and I could see a big fall in prices. Probably a good thing overall.
Yes, defo a good thing overall - but better if it happens gradually and relatively with (other) prices & earnings inflation doing most of the work.
In any case 15% absolute is pretty big. Do you mean a lot more than that? That would surprise me actually.
No, but 20% wouldn’t surprise me either.
But each significant fall is likely to be met by an increase in first-time buyers at the point that they realise they can afford to buy. I.e. they won’t hang about for possible further falls.
Tough times, that's for sure. I can't recall when we last had all 3 of rampant inflation, terrible public finances, and a looming long recession.
2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away.
Hmm not really like now. But you've managed to say "Gordon Brown" so job done there.
Its different to now, but it had all 3 that you mentioned. Over 11% inflation on some measures, over 4% in RPI, plus terrible public finances and a looming long recession.
I don't excuse Tory Chancellors for sticking to Brown's fraudulent scam that housing is somehow not real inflation, I've been critical on the Tories for that too for a long time. It suited Osborne et al to pretend somehow that inflation was lower than it really was by using Brown's dodgy data and the result was the Bank of England used dodgy data for their mandate.
I'd say you want housing costs (rent and rent equivalents for owners) in there not house prices.
Anyway "Brown's fraudulent scam" - well done again. But we'll stop now, I think, so you can't keep crowbarring Gordophobic abuse into the chat. Enough's enough. I won't be an enabler.
I can understand why from your point of view you don't like the fact that the current failed policies are those of the last 20 years, not just the last 12.
That is desperate - you must feel a bit funny after psyching up to say it.
And yet it's true - the consensus of the last 20 years is obvious if you're paying attention. Not everything is party politics.
Many consensuses have contributed to where we are today. Eg I'd pick out the one that said free markets can judge risk v reward, but there are loads. You've just picked a timeframe to get a bit of New Labour in there and exclude Thatcherism.
Not really - I've picked the timeframe from the biggest shift that I can remember - from Clarkism (kept on by Brown for the first term) to Brown/Osborne/Sunakism. I don't have many political memories before 1990.
Osborne was continuity Brown? That's an unusual take.
In areas like "inflation" (pretend it doesn't exist by excluding it where it does) etc absolutely Osborne was continuity Brown and I've criticised him for that.
It suited Osborne's interests to continue with Brown's scam.
"Brown's scam" - you are at it again! It's a good job he's not a protected characteristic or you'd be up before the Beak.
You can't help yourself, can you? You claimed you weren't going to engage, but here you are trying to claim that Brown rewriting inflation to exclude inflation in house costs wasn't a scam. It was. A scam that Ishmael sought to justify by suggesting that it was a good way to rip off those with indexed linked assets. A scam Osborne etc continued with.
Housing is a cost, not solely an asset. It is in fact the largest cost of living on average, more than electricity, or gas, or cars, or even food.
Any inflation figure that excludes the largest cost of living from its data is fake.
But the point is how to include it in official inflation. Do you use some sort of rental equivalent or do you just stick in the gross asset price change? The 2nd feels wrong - as per your exchange with OLB - but agree or not it's certainly not a "scam" to *not* do that. You're only saying so because of your Gordophobia, which you do suffer from and I'm being totally serious in saying this. You're a Gordophobe. You are simply incapable of assessing his record with any degree of accuracy or fairness. It renders your punditry on him next to worthless. Which is a shame since it's both passionate and copious.
Second hand cars and inferred prices are excluded from CPI.
Houses could follow the same principle, a new build home is purely cost not anyone's asset and if the cost goes higher then that simply means the cost of purchasing has gone higher, just as if a new car cost goes higher.
Either way, excluding housing costs because that reduces the headline figure is a scam. I say the same about Osborne sticking with the scam, or Ishmael saying its a good thing because it defrauds people with indexed linked payments etc as if that's something I'd view as a positive?
Your weird Gordophilia that anything Brown did can't have any downsides is just odd. Forget Brown, rewriting inflation from including housing in RPIX to excluding it in CPI was plain dodgy data and has meant inflation has been wrongly and fallaciously claimed to be low for years.
In 1997 the average new build house price was £71,892 In 2022 the average new build house price is £292,773
Yet we're supposed to think that a change in cost from £71,892 to £292,773 is not a factor in inflation?
Only a dishonest fool could suggest such a thing.
Hardly a "scam", though, to take the view that rental equivalent is a better inclusion to cost-of-living inflation for housing costs than gross asset price change.
Still, cars are a slightly better analogy than your previous bog roll so that's a win right there.
Not really, since a cost is a cost and it is what people paying the cost have to pay. But either way the rental equivalent isn't in CPI though, thus making it a ... scam.
According to OBR data housing makes up more than a quarter of household expenditure, yet housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels combined make up only 14% of the weighting of CPI. How can you justify that?
You don't need to do rent equivalent. You just do the average mortgage cost for the average house.
Or just the average cost of the average house. Or new ones, like cars.
Financing costs aren't done in CPI on car leases, or how much interest you pay on credit card purchases for your baked beans.
What weight would you put on house prices in your CPI-BR? Since buying a house isn't consumption it's hard to know how to calculate the weight. You couldn't use the share of consumption as you do for everything else.
Why is it not consumption? If you're paying for it, its a cost, even if you have a second hand asset at the end of it.
Weight it according to expenses as a proportion of expenditure for median or average households is the sensible solution, as opposed to homeowner households as is currently done. Indeed given that inflation is a sharper problem for those who have to pay housing as well as every other cost as opposed to those on the same income who live cost-free for housing, weighting it according to non-owners would make more sense than owners, but average is surely the only accurate choice?
Housing and energy is the highest expense for the average household, forming on OBR statistics 28-33% of household budgets. So it should be weighted 28-33% accordingly, instead home owner based CPI weights it combined to a meagre14%.
Telling households that inflation is low because housing, electricity, gas and water combined are only 14% of CPI when they actually account for 28-33% is false and misleading data.
How much of your house have you consumed this week then?
As much of it as I consumed my car, or my Laptop, or my Phone.
It kept a roof above my head and the wind and rain away which is its purpose and why it is the most expensive item in my budget.
You demolish your house and buy a new one every five years? No wonder you are composing Vogon poetry on the topic, as was aptly remarked yesterday.
The world is just one great big conspiracy to defraud Barty, and only a nimby scumbag would deny the fact.
Bellyflop of the month, though, thinking Brown changed inflation target from RPI with housing in it to CPI without, and being told the previous measure was RPIX, without housing in it. That stopped him in his tracks for half an hour but now he has found that RPIX includes the vat element of ground rent or some such shit while CPI doesn't, so he was right all along. Nimby Brown out to do Bart down.
And what he wants is a Heath Robinson arrangement anyway: put hpi into the inflation figures so the bank will notice and do something about it, when its primary effect will be an insane feedback loop simply increasing inflation. Instead of just giving the bank a separate, primary duty to control house prices.
You're full of shit. Housing always was in RPIX and I knew that even if you don't. Sorry if I was unable to respond to you within half an hour, I do have a life outside this website, but you were simply categorically wrong to think RPIX excludes housing costs in the same way CPI does.
Including HPI within inflation, weighted properly to what housing actually costs households, as happened until RPIX was dumped wouldn't be an insane feedback loop. Including MIPs instead of HPI would create a feedback loop which is why it very sensibly wasn't included in RPIX which I agree with. HPI and rent etc should take the full share of housing costs proportionately weighted to the average household budget not rate-sensitive MIPs.
Don't call me "full of shit," Bart. OPT you wrote
"2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away."
Has anyone ever been more bang to rights?
I was completely right. RPI does include housing.
RPIX excludes the MIP to avoid the feedback loop problem which is entirely sensible, but it still includes housing with housing depreciation etc in a way that CPI doesn't.
If you think housing = MIP alone you couldn't be more wrong.
But it wasn't what Gordo changed from, was it now? RPIX is not RPI. If you meant RPIX you would have said RPIX. The End.
Your problem is that you don't understand that HPI is a conceptually different thing from CPI or RPI. No matter how house prices balloon there is a limit to what people can afford to spend to house themselves, what with needing to eat stuff and fuel their cars etc. and not being on unlimited wages. So there is NO proxy for HPI which you can plug into the other indices which will make the BoE say Lawks, CPI is running at 500% all of a sudden, we must crash the market to get back on target. It doesn't happen because it just doesn't work that way, not because of skulduggery by Brown or Osborne or anyone else.
Don't be a pedantic ignoramus, RPIX is a form of RPI and the inflation figure has typically been referred to as RPI even if it was technically RPIX. And it includes house prices (via depreciation), even if it excludes MIP to avoid the feedback loop problem.
There is a limit to what people can afford to spend to house themselves, which is why I didn't propose replacing CPI with HPI, but rather weighting it properly, but it is not just a part of household expenditure but on average the biggest part of household expenditure which is why it should be there and properly weighted. Are you familiar with the concept of weighting and understand what it means?
If housing and energy make up 28% of household expenditure, it should be weighted to 28% within CPI, not down-weighted to half that. If for some reason housing and energy proportionately cost less in an era of high-inflation, then the weightings should adapt and adjust accordingly. Unfortunately since CPI for no good reason excluded housing inflation and downweights housing and energy to half its real weighting, that makes CPI data completely flawed.
But how about you say what it should be instead? If housing and energy are 28% of expenditure on average, then should housing and energy in your eyes be weighted to
A: 14% B: 28%
It makes no difference. CPIH is 31 or 32% housing costs. Look at the graph here
Can we have a nice chat about how Cambridge is really part of the North instead?
Well, it has a 'North' station, but no 'South' one - yet.
Is that the one which tells you on the destination board that you've arrived at a the seat of a mighty institution of research and teaching?
Although it somehow forgets to mention the University of Cambridge is also based there.
That certainly used to be the case at Cambridge - unsure about the North station.
(For others: the running-in boards on the station used to have "Home to Anglia Ruskin Univeraity" underneath them.)
(Extra marks for anyone who knew what 'running-in boards' were .... )
I did not know they were called running-in boards! I do know that it's annoying to be looking out of a slowing train and not be able to see one, and therefore that there should be two or three times as many.
How much do people reckon Roe vs Wade is going to have an impact coming up?
Especially amongst young who are more politically motivated but generally underrepresented in polling due to normally lower turn outs.
Could the Dems hold onto more seats than expected as a result?
That was the way it looked when I was touring the US a few weeks back. Evidenced by record levels of female registration. Media suggests that economic difficulties have swung things back a little since?
I'm not convinced house prices are going to drop too much with hugely negative real rates.
I'll stick with my 15% prediction for London.
There’s been a lot of building around here (Ealing) over the last few years. It feels like the supply will increase greatly, and I could see a big fall in prices. Probably a good thing overall.
Yes, defo a good thing overall - but better if it happens gradually and relatively with (other) prices & earnings inflation doing most of the work.
In any case 15% absolute is pretty big. Do you mean a lot more than that? That would surprise me actually.
No, but 20% wouldn’t surprise me either.
But each significant fall is likely to be met by an increase in first-time buyers at the point that they realise they can afford to buy. I.e. they won’t hang about for possible further falls.
Tough times, that's for sure. I can't recall when we last had all 3 of rampant inflation, terrible public finances, and a looming long recession.
2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away.
Hmm not really like now. But you've managed to say "Gordon Brown" so job done there.
Its different to now, but it had all 3 that you mentioned. Over 11% inflation on some measures, over 4% in RPI, plus terrible public finances and a looming long recession.
I don't excuse Tory Chancellors for sticking to Brown's fraudulent scam that housing is somehow not real inflation, I've been critical on the Tories for that too for a long time. It suited Osborne et al to pretend somehow that inflation was lower than it really was by using Brown's dodgy data and the result was the Bank of England used dodgy data for their mandate.
I'd say you want housing costs (rent and rent equivalents for owners) in there not house prices.
Anyway "Brown's fraudulent scam" - well done again. But we'll stop now, I think, so you can't keep crowbarring Gordophobic abuse into the chat. Enough's enough. I won't be an enabler.
I can understand why from your point of view you don't like the fact that the current failed policies are those of the last 20 years, not just the last 12.
That is desperate - you must feel a bit funny after psyching up to say it.
And yet it's true - the consensus of the last 20 years is obvious if you're paying attention. Not everything is party politics.
Many consensuses have contributed to where we are today. Eg I'd pick out the one that said free markets can judge risk v reward, but there are loads. You've just picked a timeframe to get a bit of New Labour in there and exclude Thatcherism.
Not really - I've picked the timeframe from the biggest shift that I can remember - from Clarkism (kept on by Brown for the first term) to Brown/Osborne/Sunakism. I don't have many political memories before 1990.
Osborne was continuity Brown? That's an unusual take.
In areas like "inflation" (pretend it doesn't exist by excluding it where it does) etc absolutely Osborne was continuity Brown and I've criticised him for that.
It suited Osborne's interests to continue with Brown's scam.
"Brown's scam" - you are at it again! It's a good job he's not a protected characteristic or you'd be up before the Beak.
You can't help yourself, can you? You claimed you weren't going to engage, but here you are trying to claim that Brown rewriting inflation to exclude inflation in house costs wasn't a scam. It was. A scam that Ishmael sought to justify by suggesting that it was a good way to rip off those with indexed linked assets. A scam Osborne etc continued with.
Housing is a cost, not solely an asset. It is in fact the largest cost of living on average, more than electricity, or gas, or cars, or even food.
Any inflation figure that excludes the largest cost of living from its data is fake.
But the point is how to include it in official inflation. Do you use some sort of rental equivalent or do you just stick in the gross asset price change? The 2nd feels wrong - as per your exchange with OLB - but agree or not it's certainly not a "scam" to *not* do that. You're only saying so because of your Gordophobia, which you do suffer from and I'm being totally serious in saying this. You're a Gordophobe. You are simply incapable of assessing his record with any degree of accuracy or fairness. It renders your punditry on him next to worthless. Which is a shame since it's both passionate and copious.
Second hand cars and inferred prices are excluded from CPI.
Houses could follow the same principle, a new build home is purely cost not anyone's asset and if the cost goes higher then that simply means the cost of purchasing has gone higher, just as if a new car cost goes higher.
Either way, excluding housing costs because that reduces the headline figure is a scam. I say the same about Osborne sticking with the scam, or Ishmael saying its a good thing because it defrauds people with indexed linked payments etc as if that's something I'd view as a positive?
Your weird Gordophilia that anything Brown did can't have any downsides is just odd. Forget Brown, rewriting inflation from including housing in RPIX to excluding it in CPI was plain dodgy data and has meant inflation has been wrongly and fallaciously claimed to be low for years.
In 1997 the average new build house price was £71,892 In 2022 the average new build house price is £292,773
Yet we're supposed to think that a change in cost from £71,892 to £292,773 is not a factor in inflation?
Only a dishonest fool could suggest such a thing.
Hardly a "scam", though, to take the view that rental equivalent is a better inclusion to cost-of-living inflation for housing costs than gross asset price change.
Still, cars are a slightly better analogy than your previous bog roll so that's a win right there.
Not really, since a cost is a cost and it is what people paying the cost have to pay. But either way the rental equivalent isn't in CPI though, thus making it a ... scam.
According to OBR data housing makes up more than a quarter of household expenditure, yet housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels combined make up only 14% of the weighting of CPI. How can you justify that?
You don't need to do rent equivalent. You just do the average mortgage cost for the average house.
Or just the average cost of the average house. Or new ones, like cars.
Financing costs aren't done in CPI on car leases, or how much interest you pay on credit card purchases for your baked beans.
What weight would you put on house prices in your CPI-BR? Since buying a house isn't consumption it's hard to know how to calculate the weight. You couldn't use the share of consumption as you do for everything else.
Why is it not consumption? If you're paying for it, its a cost, even if you have a second hand asset at the end of it.
Weight it according to expenses as a proportion of expenditure for median or average households is the sensible solution, as opposed to homeowner households as is currently done. Indeed given that inflation is a sharper problem for those who have to pay housing as well as every other cost as opposed to those on the same income who live cost-free for housing, weighting it according to non-owners would make more sense than owners, but average is surely the only accurate choice?
Housing and energy is the highest expense for the average household, forming on OBR statistics 28-33% of household budgets. So it should be weighted 28-33% accordingly, instead home owner based CPI weights it combined to a meagre14%.
Telling households that inflation is low because housing, electricity, gas and water combined are only 14% of CPI when they actually account for 28-33% is false and misleading data.
How much of your house have you consumed this week then?
As much of it as I consumed my car, or my Laptop, or my Phone.
It kept a roof above my head and the wind and rain away which is its purpose and why it is the most expensive item in my budget.
You demolish your house and buy a new one every five years? No wonder you are composing Vogon poetry on the topic, as was aptly remarked yesterday.
The world is just one great big conspiracy to defraud Barty, and only a nimby scumbag would deny the fact.
Bellyflop of the month, though, thinking Brown changed inflation target from RPI with housing in it to CPI without, and being told the previous measure was RPIX, without housing in it. That stopped him in his tracks for half an hour but now he has found that RPIX includes the vat element of ground rent or some such shit while CPI doesn't, so he was right all along. Nimby Brown out to do Bart down.
And what he wants is a Heath Robinson arrangement anyway: put hpi into the inflation figures so the bank will notice and do something about it, when its primary effect will be an insane feedback loop simply increasing inflation. Instead of just giving the bank a separate, primary duty to control house prices.
You're full of shit. Housing always was in RPIX and I knew that even if you don't. Sorry if I was unable to respond to you within half an hour, I do have a life outside this website, but you were simply categorically wrong to think RPIX excludes housing costs in the same way CPI does.
Including HPI within inflation, weighted properly to what housing actually costs households, as happened until RPIX was dumped wouldn't be an insane feedback loop. Including MIPs instead of HPI would create a feedback loop which is why it very sensibly wasn't included in RPIX which I agree with. HPI and rent etc should take the full share of housing costs proportionately weighted to the average household budget not rate-sensitive MIPs.
Don't call me "full of shit," Bart. OPT you wrote
"2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away."
Has anyone ever been more bang to rights?
I was completely right. RPI does include housing.
RPIX excludes the MIP to avoid the feedback loop problem which is entirely sensible, but it still includes housing with housing depreciation etc in a way that CPI doesn't.
If you think housing = MIP alone you couldn't be more wrong.
But it wasn't what Gordo changed from, was it now? RPIX is not RPI. If you meant RPIX you would have said RPIX. The End.
Your problem is that you don't understand that HPI is a conceptually different thing from CPI or RPI. No matter how house prices balloon there is a limit to what people can afford to spend to house themselves, what with needing to eat stuff and fuel their cars etc. and not being on unlimited wages. So there is NO proxy for HPI which you can plug into the other indices which will make the BoE say Lawks, CPI is running at 500% all of a sudden, we must crash the market to get back on target. It doesn't happen because it just doesn't work that way, not because of skulduggery by Brown or Osborne or anyone else.
Don't be a pedantic ignoramus, RPIX is a form of RPI and the inflation figure has typically been referred to as RPI even if it was technically RPIX. And it includes house prices (via depreciation), even if it excludes MIP to avoid the feedback loop problem.
There is a limit to what people can afford to spend to house themselves, which is why I didn't propose replacing CPI with HPI, but rather weighting it properly, but it is not just a part of household expenditure but on average the biggest part of household expenditure which is why it should be there and properly weighted. Are you familiar with the concept of weighting and understand what it means?
If housing and energy make up 28% of household expenditure, it should be weighted to 28% within CPI, not down-weighted to half that. If for some reason housing and energy proportionately cost less in an era of high-inflation, then the weightings should adapt and adjust accordingly. Unfortunately since CPI for no good reason excluded housing inflation and downweights housing and energy to half its real weighting, that makes CPI data completely flawed.
But how about you say what it should be instead? If housing and energy are 28% of expenditure on average, then should housing and energy in your eyes be weighted to
A: 14% B: 28%
It makes no difference. CPIH is 31 or 32% housing costs. Look at the graph here
and see how closely the two track each other since 2011.
CPIH measures owner-occupier housing costs and not housing costs. 🤦♂️
Yes, so what? Does that not make it a pretty good proxy for CPI but with the increase in the housing cost number you want? If not, why not? Do owner occupiers have different consumption patterns of the other things in the basket?
And you really can't afford the wankerish emojis after the great and hilarious RPIX debacle, which will never get old.
Can we have a nice chat about how Cambridge is really part of the North instead?
Well, it has a 'North' station, but no 'South' one - yet.
Is that the one which tells you on the destination board that you've arrived at a the seat of a mighty institution of research and teaching?
Although it somehow forgets to mention the University of Cambridge is also based there.
That certainly used to be the case at Cambridge - unsure about the North station.
(For others: the running-in boards on the station used to have "Home to Anglia Ruskin Univeraity" underneath them.)
(Extra marks for anyone who knew what 'running-in boards' were .... )
The terrible, terrible slogan that went with it.
"Not just an old University in Cambridge"
I love the thought of the good folk of Newtown, Mass deciding to rename the town at the same time as they renamed New College to Harvard. "After all, lads, it's not like we are treading on anyone's toes..."
"This is an estate community and it is very close to the hotel.
"I don't want to be judgemental about the people coming in but we have had situations before because we are close-knit estate - and, if you are going to put people in a hotel near a close-knit estate, who knows what could happen?"
I spent critical years in Norwich - 14-18; 'O' and 'A' levels. Rapidly went downhill academically and in other ways. I blame it on the Norwich folk, especially teachers, not appreciating my earthy northern humour. Strange place. I liked it more when I returned later on to visit my parents, who stayed there until their demise.
Did you realise they counted to base 12, or so is the implication of what I am told on PB, not that I would know? That would sure account for maths problems.
Dev n Corn seem to have cornered the market in wind.
Would be interesting to see that with the locations/sizes of wind farms included. The huge boom in North Sea windfarms is obviously great, but I think it means that our wind capacity is particularly concentrated there.
It's why it can make sense to put wind turbines up in places with less wind on average, because often those places will happen to be windy when the more windy places aren't.
What's interesting playing with those graphs is how windy the Irish Sea is compared to mainland in the forthcoming week. Often windier than the North Sea. No idea how typical or atypical that is.
Rarely hear about developments in the Irish Sea? Is it getting exploited in the same way for wind farms and if not, is there a reason (geographical, shipping or otherwise) why not?
The Crown Estate have a map, which could be better.
I think it is often windier in the Irish Sea, but that rapidly becomes deeper than the North Sea away from the coast. We might see more Irish Sea development with the new floating wind turbines.
The other issue is that Ireland made a great start to onshore wind, and then have really lagged far behind with offshore, and obviously half the resource is in their waters.
The only strategy for Rishi with any significant prospect of payoff is to become the new Mrs T, take some really unpopular fiscal decisions with Hunt in the immediate term, and hope that some voters recognise you as a grown up politician and enough others see at least the beginnings of some green shoots come an election at the back end of 2024.
But neither his character nor his political capital appear up to the job. Is Rishi really going to break the triple lock (in such a way as to unlock sufficient financial headroom elsewhere), or take on the pensioners by merging tax and NI? To recognise the need for compromise with the EU and a softer Brexit? To start shifting taxation toward property wealth? To push up taxes on higher earners?
He’s boxed in by his party and his politics, and it’s hard to see him slipping into a phone box and re-emerging as a modern day superman.
Can we have a nice chat about how Cambridge is really part of the North instead?
Well, it has a 'North' station, but no 'South' one - yet.
Is that the one which tells you on the destination board that you've arrived at a the seat of a mighty institution of research and teaching?
Although it somehow forgets to mention the University of Cambridge is also based there.
That certainly used to be the case at Cambridge - unsure about the North station.
(For others: the running-in boards on the station used to have "Home to Anglia Ruskin Univeraity" underneath them.)
(Extra marks for anyone who knew what 'running-in boards' were .... )
The terrible, terrible slogan that went with it.
"Not just an old University in Cambridge"
I love the thought of the good folk of Newtown, Mass deciding to rename the town at the same time as they renamed New College to Harvard. "After all, lads, it's not like we are treading on anyone's toes..."
They were obviously worried about being called the same as Newtown, Isle of Wight. (Which is BTW a fascinating place. This is the town hall in the middle of the picture. As you can see, the town plots have, erm, not remained densely occupied.)
Can we have a nice chat about how Cambridge is really part of the North instead?
Well, it has a 'North' station, but no 'South' one - yet.
Is that the one which tells you on the destination board that you've arrived at a the seat of a mighty institution of research and teaching?
Although it somehow forgets to mention the University of Cambridge is also based there.
That certainly used to be the case at Cambridge - unsure about the North station.
(For others: the running-in boards on the station used to have "Home to Anglia Ruskin Univeraity" underneath them.)
(Extra marks for anyone who knew what 'running-in boards' were .... )
The terrible, terrible slogan that went with it.
"Not just an old University in Cambridge"
I love the thought of the good folk of Newtown, Mass deciding to rename the town at the same time as they renamed New College to Harvard. "After all, lads, it's not like we are treading on anyone's toes..."
They were obviously worried about being called the same as Newtown, Isle of Wight. (Which is BTW a fascinating place. This is the town hall in the middle of the picture. As you can see, the town plots have, erm, not remained densely occupied.)
"This is an estate community and it is very close to the hotel.
"I don't want to be judgemental about the people coming in but we have had situations before because we are close-knit estate - and, if you are going to put people in a hotel near a close-knit estate, who knows what could happen?"
"I'm not racist, but we're close-knit. And hotel dwellers are different, aren't they?"
"Don't want to be judgemental" - lol.
How fitting that "close-knit" rhymes with "full of sh*t".
Absolutely classic xenophobia.
I'm not sure what kind of estate that person is talking about, but I've lived on council estates and also estates of privately-owned houses and none of them have been particularly close-knit. Perhaps about two generations ago they may have been.
I thought "close-knit" was code for an inbreeding problem?
Can we have a nice chat about how Cambridge is really part of the North instead?
Well, it has a 'North' station, but no 'South' one - yet.
Is that the one which tells you on the destination board that you've arrived at a the seat of a mighty institution of research and teaching?
Although it somehow forgets to mention the University of Cambridge is also based there.
That certainly used to be the case at Cambridge - unsure about the North station.
(For others: the running-in boards on the station used to have "Home to Anglia Ruskin Univeraity" underneath them.)
(Extra marks for anyone who knew what 'running-in boards' were .... )
The terrible, terrible slogan that went with it.
"Not just an old University in Cambridge"
I love the thought of the good folk of Newtown, Mass deciding to rename the town at the same time as they renamed New College to Harvard. "After all, lads, it's not like we are treading on anyone's toes..."
They were obviously worried about being called the same as Newtown, Isle of Wight. (Which is BTW a fascinating place. This is the town hall in the middle of the picture. As you can see, the town plots have, erm, not remained densely occupied.)
How much do people reckon Roe vs Wade is going to have an impact coming up?
Especially amongst young who are more politically motivated but generally underrepresented in polling due to normally lower turn outs.
Could the Dems hold onto more seats than expected as a result?
That was the way it looked when I was touring the US a few weeks back. Evidenced by record levels of female registration. Media suggests that economic difficulties have swung things back a little since?
Trump’s Fed Chair seems to be doing his best for the GOP.
I'm not convinced house prices are going to drop too much with hugely negative real rates.
I'll stick with my 15% prediction for London.
There’s been a lot of building around here (Ealing) over the last few years. It feels like the supply will increase greatly, and I could see a big fall in prices. Probably a good thing overall.
Yes, defo a good thing overall - but better if it happens gradually and relatively with (other) prices & earnings inflation doing most of the work.
In any case 15% absolute is pretty big. Do you mean a lot more than that? That would surprise me actually.
No, but 20% wouldn’t surprise me either.
But each significant fall is likely to be met by an increase in first-time buyers at the point that they realise they can afford to buy. I.e. they won’t hang about for possible further falls.
Tough times, that's for sure. I can't recall when we last had all 3 of rampant inflation, terrible public finances, and a looming long recession.
2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away.
Hmm not really like now. But you've managed to say "Gordon Brown" so job done there.
Its different to now, but it had all 3 that you mentioned. Over 11% inflation on some measures, over 4% in RPI, plus terrible public finances and a looming long recession.
I don't excuse Tory Chancellors for sticking to Brown's fraudulent scam that housing is somehow not real inflation, I've been critical on the Tories for that too for a long time. It suited Osborne et al to pretend somehow that inflation was lower than it really was by using Brown's dodgy data and the result was the Bank of England used dodgy data for their mandate.
I'd say you want housing costs (rent and rent equivalents for owners) in there not house prices.
Anyway "Brown's fraudulent scam" - well done again. But we'll stop now, I think, so you can't keep crowbarring Gordophobic abuse into the chat. Enough's enough. I won't be an enabler.
I can understand why from your point of view you don't like the fact that the current failed policies are those of the last 20 years, not just the last 12.
That is desperate - you must feel a bit funny after psyching up to say it.
And yet it's true - the consensus of the last 20 years is obvious if you're paying attention. Not everything is party politics.
Many consensuses have contributed to where we are today. Eg I'd pick out the one that said free markets can judge risk v reward, but there are loads. You've just picked a timeframe to get a bit of New Labour in there and exclude Thatcherism.
Not really - I've picked the timeframe from the biggest shift that I can remember - from Clarkism (kept on by Brown for the first term) to Brown/Osborne/Sunakism. I don't have many political memories before 1990.
Osborne was continuity Brown? That's an unusual take.
In areas like "inflation" (pretend it doesn't exist by excluding it where it does) etc absolutely Osborne was continuity Brown and I've criticised him for that.
It suited Osborne's interests to continue with Brown's scam.
"Brown's scam" - you are at it again! It's a good job he's not a protected characteristic or you'd be up before the Beak.
You can't help yourself, can you? You claimed you weren't going to engage, but here you are trying to claim that Brown rewriting inflation to exclude inflation in house costs wasn't a scam. It was. A scam that Ishmael sought to justify by suggesting that it was a good way to rip off those with indexed linked assets. A scam Osborne etc continued with.
Housing is a cost, not solely an asset. It is in fact the largest cost of living on average, more than electricity, or gas, or cars, or even food.
Any inflation figure that excludes the largest cost of living from its data is fake.
But the point is how to include it in official inflation. Do you use some sort of rental equivalent or do you just stick in the gross asset price change? The 2nd feels wrong - as per your exchange with OLB - but agree or not it's certainly not a "scam" to *not* do that. You're only saying so because of your Gordophobia, which you do suffer from and I'm being totally serious in saying this. You're a Gordophobe. You are simply incapable of assessing his record with any degree of accuracy or fairness. It renders your punditry on him next to worthless. Which is a shame since it's both passionate and copious.
Second hand cars and inferred prices are excluded from CPI.
Houses could follow the same principle, a new build home is purely cost not anyone's asset and if the cost goes higher then that simply means the cost of purchasing has gone higher, just as if a new car cost goes higher.
Either way, excluding housing costs because that reduces the headline figure is a scam. I say the same about Osborne sticking with the scam, or Ishmael saying its a good thing because it defrauds people with indexed linked payments etc as if that's something I'd view as a positive?
Your weird Gordophilia that anything Brown did can't have any downsides is just odd. Forget Brown, rewriting inflation from including housing in RPIX to excluding it in CPI was plain dodgy data and has meant inflation has been wrongly and fallaciously claimed to be low for years.
In 1997 the average new build house price was £71,892 In 2022 the average new build house price is £292,773
Yet we're supposed to think that a change in cost from £71,892 to £292,773 is not a factor in inflation?
Only a dishonest fool could suggest such a thing.
Hardly a "scam", though, to take the view that rental equivalent is a better inclusion to cost-of-living inflation for housing costs than gross asset price change.
Still, cars are a slightly better analogy than your previous bog roll so that's a win right there.
Not really, since a cost is a cost and it is what people paying the cost have to pay. But either way the rental equivalent isn't in CPI though, thus making it a ... scam.
According to OBR data housing makes up more than a quarter of household expenditure, yet housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels combined make up only 14% of the weighting of CPI. How can you justify that?
You don't need to do rent equivalent. You just do the average mortgage cost for the average house.
Or just the average cost of the average house. Or new ones, like cars.
Financing costs aren't done in CPI on car leases, or how much interest you pay on credit card purchases for your baked beans.
What weight would you put on house prices in your CPI-BR? Since buying a house isn't consumption it's hard to know how to calculate the weight. You couldn't use the share of consumption as you do for everything else.
Why is it not consumption? If you're paying for it, its a cost, even if you have a second hand asset at the end of it.
Weight it according to expenses as a proportion of expenditure for median or average households is the sensible solution, as opposed to homeowner households as is currently done. Indeed given that inflation is a sharper problem for those who have to pay housing as well as every other cost as opposed to those on the same income who live cost-free for housing, weighting it according to non-owners would make more sense than owners, but average is surely the only accurate choice?
Housing and energy is the highest expense for the average household, forming on OBR statistics 28-33% of household budgets. So it should be weighted 28-33% accordingly, instead home owner based CPI weights it combined to a meagre14%.
Telling households that inflation is low because housing, electricity, gas and water combined are only 14% of CPI when they actually account for 28-33% is false and misleading data.
How much of your house have you consumed this week then?
As much of it as I consumed my car, or my Laptop, or my Phone.
It kept a roof above my head and the wind and rain away which is its purpose and why it is the most expensive item in my budget.
You demolish your house and buy a new one every five years? No wonder you are composing Vogon poetry on the topic, as was aptly remarked yesterday.
The world is just one great big conspiracy to defraud Barty, and only a nimby scumbag would deny the fact.
Bellyflop of the month, though, thinking Brown changed inflation target from RPI with housing in it to CPI without, and being told the previous measure was RPIX, without housing in it. That stopped him in his tracks for half an hour but now he has found that RPIX includes the vat element of ground rent or some such shit while CPI doesn't, so he was right all along. Nimby Brown out to do Bart down.
And what he wants is a Heath Robinson arrangement anyway: put hpi into the inflation figures so the bank will notice and do something about it, when its primary effect will be an insane feedback loop simply increasing inflation. Instead of just giving the bank a separate, primary duty to control house prices.
You're full of shit. Housing always was in RPIX and I knew that even if you don't. Sorry if I was unable to respond to you within half an hour, I do have a life outside this website, but you were simply categorically wrong to think RPIX excludes housing costs in the same way CPI does.
Including HPI within inflation, weighted properly to what housing actually costs households, as happened until RPIX was dumped wouldn't be an insane feedback loop. Including MIPs instead of HPI would create a feedback loop which is why it very sensibly wasn't included in RPIX which I agree with. HPI and rent etc should take the full share of housing costs proportionately weighted to the average household budget not rate-sensitive MIPs.
Don't call me "full of shit," Bart. OPT you wrote
"2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away."
Has anyone ever been more bang to rights?
I was completely right. RPI does include housing.
RPIX excludes the MIP to avoid the feedback loop problem which is entirely sensible, but it still includes housing with housing depreciation etc in a way that CPI doesn't.
If you think housing = MIP alone you couldn't be more wrong.
But it wasn't what Gordo changed from, was it now? RPIX is not RPI. If you meant RPIX you would have said RPIX. The End.
Your problem is that you don't understand that HPI is a conceptually different thing from CPI or RPI. No matter how house prices balloon there is a limit to what people can afford to spend to house themselves, what with needing to eat stuff and fuel their cars etc. and not being on unlimited wages. So there is NO proxy for HPI which you can plug into the other indices which will make the BoE say Lawks, CPI is running at 500% all of a sudden, we must crash the market to get back on target. It doesn't happen because it just doesn't work that way, not because of skulduggery by Brown or Osborne or anyone else.
Don't be a pedantic ignoramus, RPIX is a form of RPI and the inflation figure has typically been referred to as RPI even if it was technically RPIX. And it includes house prices (via depreciation), even if it excludes MIP to avoid the feedback loop problem.
There is a limit to what people can afford to spend to house themselves, which is why I didn't propose replacing CPI with HPI, but rather weighting it properly, but it is not just a part of household expenditure but on average the biggest part of household expenditure which is why it should be there and properly weighted. Are you familiar with the concept of weighting and understand what it means?
If housing and energy make up 28% of household expenditure, it should be weighted to 28% within CPI, not down-weighted to half that. If for some reason housing and energy proportionately cost less in an era of high-inflation, then the weightings should adapt and adjust accordingly. Unfortunately since CPI for no good reason excluded housing inflation and downweights housing and energy to half its real weighting, that makes CPI data completely flawed.
But how about you say what it should be instead? If housing and energy are 28% of expenditure on average, then should housing and energy in your eyes be weighted to
A: 14% B: 28%
It makes no difference. CPIH is 31 or 32% housing costs. Look at the graph here
and see how closely the two track each other since 2011.
CPIH measures owner-occupier housing costs and not housing costs. 🤦♂️
Yes, so what? Does that not make it a pretty good proxy for CPI but with the increase in the housing cost number you want? If not, why not? Do owner occupiers have different consumption patterns of the other things in the basket?
And you really can't afford the wankerish emojis after the great and hilarious RPIX debacle, which will never get old.
There was no RPIX debacle. The switch from RPI[X] to CPI has often been mentioned as RPI to CPI and you knew what I meant, and RPI[X] was exactly as I described. You're just being silly, because you embarrassed yourself thinking that housing costs = MIP which it does not.
And no owner occupier housing costs is not a good proxy for overall housing costs, which is why overall costs are what should be used, not owner occupier costs which are different.
CPIH has the right weighting for housing, which is progress from CPI, but replacing housing costs with owner occupier housing costs and applies the weighting to that. Owner occupier housing costs (maintenance and Council Tax) have had much lower inflation than overall housing costs which is reflected in OBR data showing that OOH(NA) which is not used for CPIH has consistently been higher than OOH(RE) which is.
I'm not convinced house prices are going to drop too much with hugely negative real rates.
I'll stick with my 15% prediction for London.
There’s been a lot of building around here (Ealing) over the last few years. It feels like the supply will increase greatly, and I could see a big fall in prices. Probably a good thing overall.
Yes, defo a good thing overall - but better if it happens gradually and relatively with (other) prices & earnings inflation doing most of the work.
In any case 15% absolute is pretty big. Do you mean a lot more than that? That would surprise me actually.
No, but 20% wouldn’t surprise me either.
But each significant fall is likely to be met by an increase in first-time buyers at the point that they realise they can afford to buy. I.e. they won’t hang about for possible further falls.
Tough times, that's for sure. I can't recall when we last had all 3 of rampant inflation, terrible public finances, and a looming long recession.
2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away.
Hmm not really like now. But you've managed to say "Gordon Brown" so job done there.
Its different to now, but it had all 3 that you mentioned. Over 11% inflation on some measures, over 4% in RPI, plus terrible public finances and a looming long recession.
I don't excuse Tory Chancellors for sticking to Brown's fraudulent scam that housing is somehow not real inflation, I've been critical on the Tories for that too for a long time. It suited Osborne et al to pretend somehow that inflation was lower than it really was by using Brown's dodgy data and the result was the Bank of England used dodgy data for their mandate.
I'd say you want housing costs (rent and rent equivalents for owners) in there not house prices.
Anyway "Brown's fraudulent scam" - well done again. But we'll stop now, I think, so you can't keep crowbarring Gordophobic abuse into the chat. Enough's enough. I won't be an enabler.
I can understand why from your point of view you don't like the fact that the current failed policies are those of the last 20 years, not just the last 12.
That is desperate - you must feel a bit funny after psyching up to say it.
And yet it's true - the consensus of the last 20 years is obvious if you're paying attention. Not everything is party politics.
Many consensuses have contributed to where we are today. Eg I'd pick out the one that said free markets can judge risk v reward, but there are loads. You've just picked a timeframe to get a bit of New Labour in there and exclude Thatcherism.
Not really - I've picked the timeframe from the biggest shift that I can remember - from Clarkism (kept on by Brown for the first term) to Brown/Osborne/Sunakism. I don't have many political memories before 1990.
Osborne was continuity Brown? That's an unusual take.
In areas like "inflation" (pretend it doesn't exist by excluding it where it does) etc absolutely Osborne was continuity Brown and I've criticised him for that.
It suited Osborne's interests to continue with Brown's scam.
"Brown's scam" - you are at it again! It's a good job he's not a protected characteristic or you'd be up before the Beak.
You can't help yourself, can you? You claimed you weren't going to engage, but here you are trying to claim that Brown rewriting inflation to exclude inflation in house costs wasn't a scam. It was. A scam that Ishmael sought to justify by suggesting that it was a good way to rip off those with indexed linked assets. A scam Osborne etc continued with.
Housing is a cost, not solely an asset. It is in fact the largest cost of living on average, more than electricity, or gas, or cars, or even food.
Any inflation figure that excludes the largest cost of living from its data is fake.
But the point is how to include it in official inflation. Do you use some sort of rental equivalent or do you just stick in the gross asset price change? The 2nd feels wrong - as per your exchange with OLB - but agree or not it's certainly not a "scam" to *not* do that. You're only saying so because of your Gordophobia, which you do suffer from and I'm being totally serious in saying this. You're a Gordophobe. You are simply incapable of assessing his record with any degree of accuracy or fairness. It renders your punditry on him next to worthless. Which is a shame since it's both passionate and copious.
Second hand cars and inferred prices are excluded from CPI.
Houses could follow the same principle, a new build home is purely cost not anyone's asset and if the cost goes higher then that simply means the cost of purchasing has gone higher, just as if a new car cost goes higher.
Either way, excluding housing costs because that reduces the headline figure is a scam. I say the same about Osborne sticking with the scam, or Ishmael saying its a good thing because it defrauds people with indexed linked payments etc as if that's something I'd view as a positive?
Your weird Gordophilia that anything Brown did can't have any downsides is just odd. Forget Brown, rewriting inflation from including housing in RPIX to excluding it in CPI was plain dodgy data and has meant inflation has been wrongly and fallaciously claimed to be low for years.
In 1997 the average new build house price was £71,892 In 2022 the average new build house price is £292,773
Yet we're supposed to think that a change in cost from £71,892 to £292,773 is not a factor in inflation?
Only a dishonest fool could suggest such a thing.
Hardly a "scam", though, to take the view that rental equivalent is a better inclusion to cost-of-living inflation for housing costs than gross asset price change.
Still, cars are a slightly better analogy than your previous bog roll so that's a win right there.
Not really, since a cost is a cost and it is what people paying the cost have to pay. But either way the rental equivalent isn't in CPI though, thus making it a ... scam.
According to OBR data housing makes up more than a quarter of household expenditure, yet housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels combined make up only 14% of the weighting of CPI. How can you justify that?
You don't need to do rent equivalent. You just do the average mortgage cost for the average house.
Or just the average cost of the average house. Or new ones, like cars.
Financing costs aren't done in CPI on car leases, or how much interest you pay on credit card purchases for your baked beans.
What weight would you put on house prices in your CPI-BR? Since buying a house isn't consumption it's hard to know how to calculate the weight. You couldn't use the share of consumption as you do for everything else.
Why is it not consumption? If you're paying for it, its a cost, even if you have a second hand asset at the end of it.
Weight it according to expenses as a proportion of expenditure for median or average households is the sensible solution, as opposed to homeowner households as is currently done. Indeed given that inflation is a sharper problem for those who have to pay housing as well as every other cost as opposed to those on the same income who live cost-free for housing, weighting it according to non-owners would make more sense than owners, but average is surely the only accurate choice?
Housing and energy is the highest expense for the average household, forming on OBR statistics 28-33% of household budgets. So it should be weighted 28-33% accordingly, instead home owner based CPI weights it combined to a meagre14%.
Telling households that inflation is low because housing, electricity, gas and water combined are only 14% of CPI when they actually account for 28-33% is false and misleading data.
How much of your house have you consumed this week then?
As much of it as I consumed my car, or my Laptop, or my Phone.
It kept a roof above my head and the wind and rain away which is its purpose and why it is the most expensive item in my budget.
You demolish your house and buy a new one every five years? No wonder you are composing Vogon poetry on the topic, as was aptly remarked yesterday.
The world is just one great big conspiracy to defraud Barty, and only a nimby scumbag would deny the fact.
Bellyflop of the month, though, thinking Brown changed inflation target from RPI with housing in it to CPI without, and being told the previous measure was RPIX, without housing in it. That stopped him in his tracks for half an hour but now he has found that RPIX includes the vat element of ground rent or some such shit while CPI doesn't, so he was right all along. Nimby Brown out to do Bart down.
And what he wants is a Heath Robinson arrangement anyway: put hpi into the inflation figures so the bank will notice and do something about it, when its primary effect will be an insane feedback loop simply increasing inflation. Instead of just giving the bank a separate, primary duty to control house prices.
You're full of shit. Housing always was in RPIX and I knew that even if you don't. Sorry if I was unable to respond to you within half an hour, I do have a life outside this website, but you were simply categorically wrong to think RPIX excludes housing costs in the same way CPI does.
Including HPI within inflation, weighted properly to what housing actually costs households, as happened until RPIX was dumped wouldn't be an insane feedback loop. Including MIPs instead of HPI would create a feedback loop which is why it very sensibly wasn't included in RPIX which I agree with. HPI and rent etc should take the full share of housing costs proportionately weighted to the average household budget not rate-sensitive MIPs.
Don't call me "full of shit," Bart. OPT you wrote
"2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away."
Has anyone ever been more bang to rights?
I was completely right. RPI does include housing.
RPIX excludes the MIP to avoid the feedback loop problem which is entirely sensible, but it still includes housing with housing depreciation etc in a way that CPI doesn't.
If you think housing = MIP alone you couldn't be more wrong.
But it wasn't what Gordo changed from, was it now? RPIX is not RPI. If you meant RPIX you would have said RPIX. The End.
Your problem is that you don't understand that HPI is a conceptually different thing from CPI or RPI. No matter how house prices balloon there is a limit to what people can afford to spend to house themselves, what with needing to eat stuff and fuel their cars etc. and not being on unlimited wages. So there is NO proxy for HPI which you can plug into the other indices which will make the BoE say Lawks, CPI is running at 500% all of a sudden, we must crash the market to get back on target. It doesn't happen because it just doesn't work that way, not because of skulduggery by Brown or Osborne or anyone else.
Don't be a pedantic ignoramus, RPIX is a form of RPI and the inflation figure has typically been referred to as RPI even if it was technically RPIX. And it includes house prices (via depreciation), even if it excludes MIP to avoid the feedback loop problem.
There is a limit to what people can afford to spend to house themselves, which is why I didn't propose replacing CPI with HPI, but rather weighting it properly, but it is not just a part of household expenditure but on average the biggest part of household expenditure which is why it should be there and properly weighted. Are you familiar with the concept of weighting and understand what it means?
If housing and energy make up 28% of household expenditure, it should be weighted to 28% within CPI, not down-weighted to half that. If for some reason housing and energy proportionately cost less in an era of high-inflation, then the weightings should adapt and adjust accordingly. Unfortunately since CPI for no good reason excluded housing inflation and downweights housing and energy to half its real weighting, that makes CPI data completely flawed.
But how about you say what it should be instead? If housing and energy are 28% of expenditure on average, then should housing and energy in your eyes be weighted to
A: 14% B: 28%
It makes no difference. CPIH is 31 or 32% housing costs. Look at the graph here
and see how closely the two track each other since 2011.
CPIH measures owner-occupier housing costs and not housing costs. 🤦♂️
Yes, so what? Does that not make it a pretty good proxy for CPI but with the increase in the housing cost number you want? If not, why not? Do owner occupiers have different consumption patterns of the other things in the basket?
And you really can't afford the wankerish emojis after the great and hilarious RPIX debacle, which will never get old.
There was no RPIX debacle. The switch from RPI[X] to CPI has often been mentioned as RPI to CPI and you knew what I meant, and RPI[X] was exactly as I described. You're just being silly, because you embarrassed yourself thinking that housing costs = MIP which it does not.
And no owner occupier housing costs is not a good proxy for overall housing costs, which is why overall costs are what should be used, not owner occupier costs which are different.
CPIH has the right weighting for housing, which is progress from CPI, but replacing housing costs with owner occupier housing costs and applies the weighting to that. Owner occupier housing costs (maintenance and Council Tax) have had much lower inflation than overall housing costs which is reflected in OBR data showing that OOH(NA) which is not used for CPIH has consistently been higher than OOH(RE) which is.
The only strategy for Rishi with any significant prospect of payoff is to become the new Mrs T, take some really unpopular fiscal decisions with Hunt in the immediate term, and hope that some voters recognise you as a grown up politician and enough others see at least the beginnings of some green shoots come an election at the back end of 2024.
But neither his character nor his political capital appear up to the job. Is Rishi really going to break the triple lock (in such a way as to unlock sufficient financial headroom elsewhere), or take on the pensioners by merging tax and NI? To recognise the need for compromise with the EU and a softer Brexit? To start shifting taxation toward property wealth? To push up taxes on higher earners?
He’s boxed in by his party and his politics, and it’s hard to see him slipping into a phone box and re-emerging as a modern day superman.
The best move regards NI and income tax would probably be to raise the NI threshold but freeze the tax rate bands. That way you are stealthily moving towards equalising earned and unearned income. On the triple lock I would say, look, we've spent a lot of money to support you through energy prices so we will suspend it for one year.
The only strategy for Rishi with any significant prospect of payoff is to become the new Mrs T, take some really unpopular fiscal decisions with Hunt in the immediate term, and hope that some voters recognise you as a grown up politician and enough others see at least the beginnings of some green shoots come an election at the back end of 2024.
But neither his character nor his political capital appear up to the job. Is Rishi really going to break the triple lock (in such a way as to unlock sufficient financial headroom elsewhere), or take on the pensioners by merging tax and NI? To recognise the need for compromise with the EU and a softer Brexit? To start shifting taxation toward property wealth? To push up taxes on higher earners?
He’s boxed in by his party and his politics, and it’s hard to see him slipping into a phone box and re-emerging as a modern day superman.
Signs of green shoots by early 2010 failed to save Gordon Brown. Moreover, Thatcher would not have won re-election 2 years into the 1979 Parliament - ie mid-1981.
Dev n Corn seem to have cornered the market in wind.
Would be interesting to see that with the locations/sizes of wind farms included. The huge boom in North Sea windfarms is obviously great, but I think it means that our wind capacity is particularly concentrated there.
It's why it can make sense to put wind turbines up in places with less wind on average, because often those places will happen to be windy when the more windy places aren't.
None of it makes sense at all if you're not storing the power.
And of course, this reminder. This article came out in 2020, but in case anyone's forgotten, 3 of the current Justices worked with George W. Bush to get SCOTUS to vote 5-4 to end the Florida recount when GWB led by just 537 votes, making him POTUS. Thomas voted with the 5. https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1588256390216581120
Dev n Corn seem to have cornered the market in wind.
Would be interesting to see that with the locations/sizes of wind farms included. The huge boom in North Sea windfarms is obviously great, but I think it means that our wind capacity is particularly concentrated there.
It's why it can make sense to put wind turbines up in places with less wind on average, because often those places will happen to be windy when the more windy places aren't.
None of it makes sense at all if you're not storing the power.
Makes plenty of sense if you are saving on fossil fuels or stored hydro.
Can we have a nice chat about how Cambridge is really part of the North instead?
The headquarters of South Cambridgeshire district council are in Cambridge even though Cambridge is a separate council area. Useless fact.
The only polo mint district, completely encircling another one. (Which is why being based in Cambridge made sense.) I think they've moved to Cambourne now, which is in their district but much less convenient.
Now that Surrey have moved County Hall to Reigate, are there any other councils in exile left?
The only strategy for Rishi with any significant prospect of payoff is to become the new Mrs T, take some really unpopular fiscal decisions with Hunt in the immediate term, and hope that some voters recognise you as a grown up politician and enough others see at least the beginnings of some green shoots come an election at the back end of 2024.
But neither his character nor his political capital appear up to the job. Is Rishi really going to break the triple lock (in such a way as to unlock sufficient financial headroom elsewhere), or take on the pensioners by merging tax and NI? To recognise the need for compromise with the EU and a softer Brexit? To start shifting taxation toward property wealth? To push up taxes on higher earners?
He’s boxed in by his party and his politics, and it’s hard to see him slipping into a phone box and re-emerging as a modern day superman.
Signs of green shoots by early 2010 failed to save Gordon Brown. Moreover, Thatcher would not have won re-election 2 years into the 1979 Parliament - ie mid-1981.
Yes, from a political point of view the most significant fact from today’s BoE announcement is that the economic grief now extends beyond the next GE.
The prime cause of inflation is high energy prices. So what are we doing to bring those down? The government has talked a lot about supporting people with their bills but what about the basic price of gas? Other European countries seem to have been a lot more proactive on this front. Our gas prices have just shot up again. Is that Bailey's fault? Inflation is not just a matter of monetary policy. I'm sure they were behind the curve on rates but so too were others.
What is the reason why inflation is so low in places with a very high energy import dependency, like Switzerland? And so high in net energy exporter the US?
Clue: compare their monetary policy over a sustained period of time.
It is more useful to think of inflation as the value of money rather than the price of goods and services. When you do so, you realise how disgracefully our monetary policy has been run for a very very long time, largely in order to pay for our low productivity and twin deficit (fiscal and current acct) economic model.
"Russia's ambassador to the UK has claimed Britain played a role in an attack on its warships - warning the country is 'too deep"' in the Ukraine war.
In an interview with Sky's Mark Austin, top diplomat Andrei Kelin claimed he had proof that UK special forces were involved in a Ukrainian drone assault on Russia's Black Sea fleet in Crimea and had handed 'evidence' to the British ambassador.
Asked to provide evidence of Russia's claims, Mr Kelin said: 'We perfectly know about [the] participation of British specialists in [the] training, preparation and execution of violence against the Russian infrastructure and the Russian fleet in the Black Sea. We know that it has been done.'
Pressed to give evidence to the public on Moscow's accusation the attack on the Russian fleet in the Black Sea was carried out under the guidance and leadership of British Navy specialists, Mr Kelin said it had been handed to the British ambassador and added that 'it will become public pretty soon,' perhaps today, perhaps tomorrow."
Shades of Gary Powers and the 1960 "U2 incident"?
In that case, the USA first denied the spy flights but then the Soviet side produced Powers and his equipment.
What happens if the Sevastopol case or similar goes down the same path?
(It might be possible to discuss this as grownups without saying Putin's a lily-livered poohead and DJ41 is a fascist retard for asking.)
Dev n Corn seem to have cornered the market in wind.
Would be interesting to see that with the locations/sizes of wind farms included. The huge boom in North Sea windfarms is obviously great, but I think it means that our wind capacity is particularly concentrated there.
It's why it can make sense to put wind turbines up in places with less wind on average, because often those places will happen to be windy when the more windy places aren't.
None of it makes sense at all if you're not storing the power.
That's not true.
If you have enough wind to power the country on a windy day, then you don't have to burn gas that day.
Of course, this is contingent on having lots of gas storage, which is rather where my plan falls down.
The prime cause of inflation is high energy prices. So what are we doing to bring those down? The government has talked a lot about supporting people with their bills but what about the basic price of gas? Other European countries seem to have been a lot more proactive on this front. Our gas prices have just shot up again. Is that Bailey's fault? Inflation is not just a matter of monetary policy. I'm sure they were behind the curve on rates but so too were others.
What is the reason why inflation is so low in places with a very high energy import dependency, like Switzerland? And so high in net energy exporter the US?
Clue: compare their monetary policy over a sustained period of time.
It is more useful to think of inflation as the value of money rather than the price of goods and services. When you do so, you realise how disgracefully our monetary policy has been run for a very very long time, largely in order to pay for our low productivity and twin deficit (fiscal and current acct) economic model.
Switzerland doesn't actually have much dependence on gas in power gen, due to its extensive hydro resources.
That will seem like a wizard wheeze until the Home Office gets the bill for the CH-47 hours from the MoD.
A bill later is always worth getting a photo with a cool thing.
I'm not entirely sure where using a £70m helicopter to go to fucking Ramsgate fits into Sunak's "Integrity, Professionalism, Accountability" agenda. It just looks like more stupid Johnson shit.
Dev n Corn seem to have cornered the market in wind.
Would be interesting to see that with the locations/sizes of wind farms included. The huge boom in North Sea windfarms is obviously great, but I think it means that our wind capacity is particularly concentrated there.
It's why it can make sense to put wind turbines up in places with less wind on average, because often those places will happen to be windy when the more windy places aren't.
None of it makes sense at all if you're not storing the power.
That's not true.
If you have enough wind to power the country on a windy day, then you don't have to burn gas that day.
Of course, this is contingent on having lots of gas storage, which is rather where my plan falls down.
You also have to make availability payments to the CCGT operators to sit there not generating on windy days. Since if you don't, the country would be buggered when it isn't windy.
That will seem like a wizard wheeze until the Home Office gets the bill for the CH-47 hours from the MoD.
A bill later is always worth getting a photo with a cool thing.
I'm not entirely sure where using a £70m helicopter to go to fucking Ramsgate fits into Sunak's "Integrity, Professionalism, Accountability" agenda. It just looks like more stupid Johnson shit.
That will seem like a wizard wheeze until the Home Office gets the bill for the CH-47 hours from the MoD.
A bill later is always worth getting a photo with a cool thing.
I'm not entirely sure where using a £70m helicopter to go to fucking Ramsgate fits into Sunak's "Integrity, Professionalism, Accountability" agenda. It just looks like more stupid Johnson shit.
The only time I went to Ramsgate was behind D9000.
Dev n Corn seem to have cornered the market in wind.
Would be interesting to see that with the locations/sizes of wind farms included. The huge boom in North Sea windfarms is obviously great, but I think it means that our wind capacity is particularly concentrated there.
It's why it can make sense to put wind turbines up in places with less wind on average, because often those places will happen to be windy when the more windy places aren't.
None of it makes sense at all if you're not storing the power.
That's not true.
If you have enough wind to power the country on a windy day, then you don't have to burn gas that day.
Of course, this is contingent on having lots of gas storage, which is rather where my plan falls down.
Two things:
1. If you have enough wind power to power the country on a not very windy day, then you don't need to burn gas that day either. Sure, on a windy day you have redundant wind capacity you can't use but so what?
That will seem like a wizard wheeze until the Home Office gets the bill for the CH-47 hours from the MoD.
A bill later is always worth getting a photo with a cool thing.
I'm not entirely sure where using a £70m helicopter to go to fucking Ramsgate fits into Sunak's "Integrity, Professionalism, Accountability" agenda. It just looks like more stupid Johnson shit.
Did it have miniguns fitted?
One would hope, it was going into an active Invasion site.
How much do people reckon Roe vs Wade is going to have an impact coming up?
Especially amongst young who are more politically motivated but generally underrepresented in polling due to normally lower turn outs.
Could the Dems hold onto more seats than expected as a result?
This is 2018 redux. If anyone says they know what is going to happen they are lying.
The Dems have run an abysmal campaign and the fundamentals say a Red Wave. But GOP Senate candidate quality is fucking abysmal and Roe is a total wildcard (it could equally energise anti-abortion voters to make the victory final as much as pro-choice voters wanting to recover lost rights).
One thing to pay attention to in the Senate betting if you choose to go in is pay attention to who currently holds the seat and not just go with what you your gut says. For instance if the Dems don't win Pennsylvania then that isn't actually a loss for them as it is currently a GOP seat, Pat Toomey won it in 2016 by 1.5 points.
My advice, like in 2018, is leave everything well alone.
Can we have a nice chat about how Cambridge is really part of the North instead?
The headquarters of South Cambridgeshire district council are in Cambridge even though Cambridge is a separate council area. Useless fact.
The only polo mint district, completely encircling another one. (Which is why being based in Cambridge made sense.) I think they've moved to Cambourne now, which is in their district but much less convenient.
Now that Surrey have moved County Hall to Reigate, are there any other councils in exile left?
The prime cause of inflation is high energy prices. So what are we doing to bring those down? The government has talked a lot about supporting people with their bills but what about the basic price of gas? Other European countries seem to have been a lot more proactive on this front. Our gas prices have just shot up again. Is that Bailey's fault? Inflation is not just a matter of monetary policy. I'm sure they were behind the curve on rates but so too were others.
What is the reason why inflation is so low in places with a very high energy import dependency, like Switzerland? And so high in net energy exporter the US?
Clue: compare their monetary policy over a sustained period of time.
It is more useful to think of inflation as the value of money rather than the price of goods and services. When you do so, you realise how disgracefully our monetary policy has been run for a very very long time, largely in order to pay for our low productivity and twin deficit (fiscal and current acct) economic model.
Switzerland doesn't actually have much dependence on gas in power gen, due to its extensive hydro resources.
Doesn’t produce much oil or have a lot of refining capacity though does it.
Dev n Corn seem to have cornered the market in wind.
Would be interesting to see that with the locations/sizes of wind farms included. The huge boom in North Sea windfarms is obviously great, but I think it means that our wind capacity is particularly concentrated there.
It's why it can make sense to put wind turbines up in places with less wind on average, because often those places will happen to be windy when the more windy places aren't.
None of it makes sense at all if you're not storing the power.
That's not true.
If you have enough wind to power the country on a windy day, then you don't have to burn gas that day.
Of course, this is contingent on having lots of gas storage, which is rather where my plan falls down.
Two things:
1. If you have enough wind power to power the country on a not very windy day, then you don't need to burn gas that day either. Sure, on a windy day you have redundant wind capacity you can't use but so what?
2. None of the above is dependent on gas storage.
If you've got enough wind power on a not very windy day then you spend a fortune on curtailment payments when it is windy.
Or you install a shit load of electrolysers to make hydrogen from the excess wind power. Convert the gas network to hydrogen and then we can tell the Qataris to do one cos we won't need their gas no more.
The prime cause of inflation is high energy prices. So what are we doing to bring those down? The government has talked a lot about supporting people with their bills but what about the basic price of gas? Other European countries seem to have been a lot more proactive on this front. Our gas prices have just shot up again. Is that Bailey's fault? Inflation is not just a matter of monetary policy. I'm sure they were behind the curve on rates but so too were others.
What is the reason why inflation is so low in places with a very high energy import dependency, like Switzerland? And so high in net energy exporter the US?
Clue: compare their monetary policy over a sustained period of time.
It is more useful to think of inflation as the value of money rather than the price of goods and services. When you do so, you realise how disgracefully our monetary policy has been run for a very very long time, largely in order to pay for our low productivity and twin deficit (fiscal and current acct) economic model.
Switzerland doesn't actually have much dependence on gas in power gen, due to its extensive hydro resources.
Doesn’t produce much oil or have a lot of refining capacity though does it.
While that's true, the Swiss spend an extremely small share of their disposable income on petrol compared to most countries, heating is mostly electric and their electricity bills haven't moved meaningfully.
So, I don't think it's their monetary policy that is preventing a spike in their inflation rate.
That will seem like a wizard wheeze until the Home Office gets the bill for the CH-47 hours from the MoD.
A bill later is always worth getting a photo with a cool thing.
I'm not entirely sure where using a £70m helicopter to go to fucking Ramsgate fits into Sunak's "Integrity, Professionalism, Accountability" agenda. It just looks like more stupid Johnson shit.
The only time I went to Ramsgate was behind D9000.
Choppers were more common going to Skegness.
On my only visit to Ramsgate I watched a very drunk man try to eat the tablecloth in a curry house.
Although inflation is certainly hurting Biden and the Democrats, it is unclear how much of our current inflation can be blamed on Biden policies. The Washington Post surveyed a number of economists, and got a range of answers, from about 4 percent of the approximately 8 percent down to 0.3 percent. source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2022/10/09/inflation-economy-biden-covid/
(My personal experience suggests that inflation is ebbing a bit. For instance, a local part of the Kroger chain (Fred Meyer's) was selling chicken drumsticks and thighs for 99 cents a pound last week. And beef short ribs for about 5 dollars a pound. Gasoline, as you probably know is off its peak by quite a bit: source: https://www.gasbuddy.com/go/gas-prices-fall-again-northeast-jumps-west-coast-pulls-down-national-average )
Biden was hurt by his mixed messaging on gasoline prices. As someone who takes that troubled Swedish girl seriously, he wants higher prices for gasoline; as someone who wants Democrats elected, he want lower prices now. It would take a very clever person to sell both arguments at the same time.
Dev n Corn seem to have cornered the market in wind.
Would be interesting to see that with the locations/sizes of wind farms included. The huge boom in North Sea windfarms is obviously great, but I think it means that our wind capacity is particularly concentrated there.
It's why it can make sense to put wind turbines up in places with less wind on average, because often those places will happen to be windy when the more windy places aren't.
None of it makes sense at all if you're not storing the power.
That's not true.
If you have enough wind to power the country on a windy day, then you don't have to burn gas that day.
Of course, this is contingent on having lots of gas storage, which is rather where my plan falls down.
Two things:
1. If you have enough wind power to power the country on a not very windy day, then you don't need to burn gas that day either. Sure, on a windy day you have redundant wind capacity you can't use but so what?
2. None of the above is dependent on gas storage.
If you've got enough wind power on a not very windy day then you spend a fortune on curtailment payments when it is windy.
Or you install a shit load of electrolysers to make hydrogen from the excess wind power. Convert the gas network to hydrogen and then we can tell the Qataris to do one cos we won't need their gas no more.
Hmmm... Converting the gas network to hydrogen is way beyond trivial. But building combined electrolysis/storage/generation plants might be achievable, I guess.
1. If you have enough wind power to power the country on a not very windy day, then you don't need to burn gas that day either. Sure, on a windy day you have redundant wind capacity you can't use but so what?
...but you've then paid an awful lot of money to build out and maintain that enormously over-sized quantity of infrastructure, much of which then sits idle the majority of the time when winds are moderate or stronger. Those costs get passed on and will come out as higher cost of electricity one way or another (or as government subsidy and higher taxation, if you prefer). Unused infrastructure capacity can be good, but it's never free.
"Russia's ambassador to the UK has claimed Britain played a role in an attack on its warships - warning the country is 'too deep"' in the Ukraine war.
In an interview with Sky's Mark Austin, top diplomat Andrei Kelin claimed he had proof that UK special forces were involved in a Ukrainian drone assault on Russia's Black Sea fleet in Crimea and had handed 'evidence' to the British ambassador.
Asked to provide evidence of Russia's claims, Mr Kelin said: 'We perfectly know about [the] participation of British specialists in [the] training, preparation and execution of violence against the Russian infrastructure and the Russian fleet in the Black Sea. We know that it has been done.'
Pressed to give evidence to the public on Moscow's accusation the attack on the Russian fleet in the Black Sea was carried out under the guidance and leadership of British Navy specialists, Mr Kelin said it had been handed to the British ambassador and added that 'it will become public pretty soon,' perhaps today, perhaps tomorrow."
Shades of Gary Powers and the 1960 "U2 incident"?
In that case, the USA first denied the spy flights but then the Soviet side produced Powers and his equipment.
What happens if the Sevastopol case or similar goes down the same path?
(It might be possible to discuss this as grownups without saying Putin's a lily-livered poohead and DJ41 is a fascist retard for asking.)
Well they could try producing some evidence for it. That would be a start.
That will seem like a wizard wheeze until the Home Office gets the bill for the CH-47 hours from the MoD.
A bill later is always worth getting a photo with a cool thing.
I'm not entirely sure where using a £70m helicopter to go to fucking Ramsgate fits into Sunak's "Integrity, Professionalism, Accountability" agenda. It just looks like more stupid Johnson shit.
Well, his main work so far has been to turn the clock back to Boris time, just without Boris, so that's not a massive shock.
That will seem like a wizard wheeze until the Home Office gets the bill for the CH-47 hours from the MoD.
A bill later is always worth getting a photo with a cool thing.
I'm not entirely sure where using a £70m helicopter to go to fucking Ramsgate fits into Sunak's "Integrity, Professionalism, Accountability" agenda. It just looks like more stupid Johnson shit.
The only time I went to Ramsgate was behind D9000.
Choppers were more common going to Skegness.
On my only visit to Ramsgate I watched a very drunk man try to eat the tablecloth in a curry house.
1. If you have enough wind power to power the country on a not very windy day, then you don't need to burn gas that day either. Sure, on a windy day you have redundant wind capacity you can't use but so what?
...but you've then paid an awful lot of money to build out and maintain that enormously over-sized quantity of infrastructure, much of which then sits idle the majority of the time when winds are moderate or stronger. Those costs get passed on and will come out as higher cost of electricity one way or another (or as government subsidy and higher taxation, if you prefer). Unused infrastructure capacity can be good, but it's never free.
Most gas turbines are idle most of the time. That’s why we have gas generation that’s able to jump from about 4gw last night to 18gw currently, and back again.
So we have vast amounts of unused energy infrastructure as a standard feature of the grid.
But don’t worry about it anyway. Wind power generators are making record mega profits, so much so that they’ll probably be hit by a windfall tax, because their cost of generation is so low compared with the price per kWh they receive.
The prime cause of inflation is high energy prices. So what are we doing to bring those down? The government has talked a lot about supporting people with their bills but what about the basic price of gas? Other European countries seem to have been a lot more proactive on this front. Our gas prices have just shot up again. Is that Bailey's fault? Inflation is not just a matter of monetary policy. I'm sure they were behind the curve on rates but so too were others.
What is the reason why inflation is so low in places with a very high energy import dependency, like Switzerland? And so high in net energy exporter the US?
Clue: compare their monetary policy over a sustained period of time.
It is more useful to think of inflation as the value of money rather than the price of goods and services. When you do so, you realise how disgracefully our monetary policy has been run for a very very long time, largely in order to pay for our low productivity and twin deficit (fiscal and current acct) economic model.
Switzerland doesn't actually have much dependence on gas in power gen, due to its extensive hydro resources.
Doesn’t produce much oil or have a lot of refining capacity though does it.
While that's true, the Swiss spend an extremely small share of their disposable income on petrol compared to most countries, heating is mostly electric and their electricity bills haven't moved meaningfully.
So, I don't think it's their monetary policy that is preventing a spike in their inflation rate.
It's the extremely reliable hydro power from the Alps and little to no purchasing of electricity based on marginal gas prices.
That will seem like a wizard wheeze until the Home Office gets the bill for the CH-47 hours from the MoD.
A bill later is always worth getting a photo with a cool thing.
I'm not entirely sure where using a £70m helicopter to go to fucking Ramsgate fits into Sunak's "Integrity, Professionalism, Accountability" agenda. It just looks like more stupid Johnson shit.
The only time I went to Ramsgate was behind D9000.
Choppers were more common going to Skegness.
Hi Sandy. Someone was pretending to be you earlier on Rail UK
Although inflation is certainly hurting Biden and the Democrats, it is unclear how much of our current inflation can be blamed on Biden policies. The Washington Post surveyed a number of economists, and got a range of answers, from about 4 percent of the approximately 8 percent down to 0.3 percent. source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2022/10/09/inflation-economy-biden-covid/
(My personal experience suggests that inflation is ebbing a bit. For instance, a local part of the Kroger chain (Fred Meyer's) was selling chicken drumsticks and thighs for 99 cents a pound last week. And beef short ribs for about 5 dollars a pound. Gasoline, as you probably know is off its peak by quite a bit: source: https://www.gasbuddy.com/go/gas-prices-fall-again-northeast-jumps-west-coast-pulls-down-national-average )
Biden was hurt by his mixed messaging on gasoline prices. As someone who takes that troubled Swedish girl seriously, he wants higher prices for gasoline; as someone who wants Democrats elected, he want lower prices now. It would take a very clever person to sell both arguments at the same time.
What about the Fed? I'm more sympathetic to the argument that monetary policy is to blame there given the largesse during covid.
1. If you have enough wind power to power the country on a not very windy day, then you don't need to burn gas that day either. Sure, on a windy day you have redundant wind capacity you can't use but so what?
...but you've then paid an awful lot of money to build out and maintain that enormously over-sized quantity of infrastructure, much of which then sits idle the majority of the time when winds are moderate or stronger. Those costs get passed on and will come out as higher cost of electricity one way or another (or as government subsidy and higher taxation, if you prefer). Unused infrastructure capacity can be good, but it's never free.
The trick will be when you can use surplus wind power to create hydrogen, which you can then store and turn back to electricity when you need it. Or when you find some other way of storing surplus electricity.
1. If you have enough wind power to power the country on a not very windy day, then you don't need to burn gas that day either. Sure, on a windy day you have redundant wind capacity you can't use but so what?
...but you've then paid an awful lot of money to build out and maintain that enormously over-sized quantity of infrastructure, much of which then sits idle the majority of the time when winds are moderate or stronger. Those costs get passed on and will come out as higher cost of electricity one way or another (or as government subsidy and higher taxation, if you prefer). Unused infrastructure capacity can be good, but it's never free.
1. If you have enough wind power to power the country on a not very windy day, then you don't need to burn gas that day either. Sure, on a windy day you have redundant wind capacity you can't use but so what?
...but you've then paid an awful lot of money to build out and maintain that enormously over-sized quantity of infrastructure, much of which then sits idle the majority of the time when winds are moderate or stronger. Those costs get passed on and will come out as higher cost of electricity one way or another (or as government subsidy and higher taxation, if you prefer). Unused infrastructure capacity can be good, but it's never free.
The trick will be when you can use surplus wind power to create hydrogen, which you can then store and turn back to electricity when you need it. Or when you find some other way of storing surplus electricity.
Once the economics for mass energy storage add up I think we’ll see a huge leap in capacity. At the moment there’s not really much need because generators can sell all their output most of the time.
I think government intervention is still a good idea at domestic or corporate scale (eg incentivising rooftop solar for businesses, and ensuring planning is not too onerous) but otherwise the market is well placed to do the heavy lifting.
This evening is an interesting case study. 2.3gw of wind power vs 17.4gw of gas, because it’s dark and cold but quite calm.
4x current installed wind capacity and we’d be generating 10gw, a third of our total demand even now in very unfavourable conditions. There is ample room on the seabed for 4x current capacity, and much more besides.
1. If you have enough wind power to power the country on a not very windy day, then you don't need to burn gas that day either. Sure, on a windy day you have redundant wind capacity you can't use but so what?
...but you've then paid an awful lot of money to build out and maintain that enormously over-sized quantity of infrastructure, much of which then sits idle the majority of the time when winds are moderate or stronger. Those costs get passed on and will come out as higher cost of electricity one way or another (or as government subsidy and higher taxation, if you prefer). Unused infrastructure capacity can be good, but it's never free.
The trick will be when you can use surplus wind power to create hydrogen, which you can then store and turn back to electricity when you need it. Or when you find some other way of storing surplus electricity.
The trick will be to make supply of renewable energy large enough that demand for fossil fuel drops off. We are a very very long way from that point, because we can do so much with energy, that at the moment all the renewable energy is adding to the total energy consumption rather than reducing CO2 emissions.
1. If you have enough wind power to power the country on a not very windy day, then you don't need to burn gas that day either. Sure, on a windy day you have redundant wind capacity you can't use but so what?
...but you've then paid an awful lot of money to build out and maintain that enormously over-sized quantity of infrastructure, much of which then sits idle the majority of the time when winds are moderate or stronger. Those costs get passed on and will come out as higher cost of electricity one way or another (or as government subsidy and higher taxation, if you prefer). Unused infrastructure capacity can be good, but it's never free.
The trick will be when you can use surplus wind power to create hydrogen, which you can then store and turn back to electricity when you need it. Or when you find some other way of storing surplus electricity.
Once the economics for mass energy storage add up I think we’ll see a huge leap in capacity. At the moment there’s not really much need because generators can sell all their output most of the time.
I think government intervention is still a good idea at domestic or corporate scale (eg incentivising rooftop solar for businesses, and ensuring planning is not too onerous) but otherwise the market is well placed to do the heavy lifting.
I'm not sure if we'll ever need anywhere near as much mass energy storage as people think, instead of distributed energy storage.
Every car on the road being electric will provide more storage, distributed, than any amount of mass storage imaginable ever would.
Power storage in homes or businesses, especially those with solar panels and/or electric cars are already increasingly financially viable too.
Within a decade we could have many tens of TWh of electrical storage distributed around the country.
FrankBooth asked: "What about the Fed['s responsibility for inflation]? I'm more sympathetic to the argument that monetary policy is to blame there given the largesse during covid."
I am not an economist, and haven't seen discussions by economists on this subject. That said, I am inclined to agree with the argument that the Fed kept rates too low, too long, and that their decision to do so was bad for the American economy in a number of ways. ("Mainstream" journalists here are, in my opinion, too slow to give Fed decisions the scrutiny they give to the decisions of elected officials.)
Comments
It's why it can make sense to put wind turbines up in places with less wind on average, because often those places will happen to be windy when the more windy places aren't.
I also found the Guardian editorial deeply unconvincing on this. They seemed to think the Bank of England's desire to raise rates put them on the side of business rather than workers. I'm not sure I fully understand this but if workers benefit from low interest rates presumably the bank has been on their side since 2009? And interest rates of 3% when inflation is over 10% is hardly eye watering? If not now, when (would you raise rates?). The market may not believe the bank when they say they don't expect rates to rise much further but in time surely things will calm down. How much of that nervousness remains due to Truss and Kwarteng?
'There are some freakish-looking cross breaks in the tables behind this poll.
R&W have unusally high LD vote retention from 2019 (70%), with 8% of 2019LDs going to the Tories and 16% for Labour. Several recent polls have shown Lab taking more of this vote than the LDs . The age cross-breaks show Labour doing better with 45-64 year olds than with 18-24s. Also, the regional cross-breaks show the Tories with a substantial lead in the North-East, but all other regions and nations back Labour. In fact the combined South of England samples show Labour 18 points ahead, meaning that this poll is the first (ever?) to show Labour faring better in the South (outside London) than for GB as a whole.
This clearly isn't the real position - all other polls show the Tories faring better in the South than GB as a whole - but currently only by about 10 points, typically, rather than the 20-25 points which has been the norm for the past 40 years or more. '
Rarely hear about developments in the Irish Sea? Is it getting exploited in the same way for wind farms and if not, is there a reason (geographical, shipping or otherwise) why not?
(For others: the running-in boards on the station used to have "Home to Anglia Ruskin Univeraity" underneath them.)
(Extra marks for anyone who knew what 'running-in boards' were ....
https://actuaries.blog.gov.uk/2021/08/23/measures-of-price-inflation-rpi-cpi-and-cpih/
and see how closely the two track each other since 2011.
It is funny, though.
https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1588158246900174851
"Not just an old University in Cambridge"
And you really can't afford the wankerish emojis after the great and hilarious RPIX debacle, which will never get old.
I think it is often windier in the Irish Sea, but that rapidly becomes deeper than the North Sea away from the coast. We might see more Irish Sea development with the new floating wind turbines.
The other issue is that Ireland made a great start to onshore wind, and then have really lagged far behind with offshore, and obviously half the resource is in their waters.
https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/en-gb/what-we-do/asset-map/#tab-2
https://images.app.goo.gl/sAwsRHSNBvKypSkw7
But neither his character nor his political capital appear up to the job. Is Rishi really going to break the triple lock (in such a way as to unlock sufficient financial headroom elsewhere), or take on the pensioners by merging tax and NI? To recognise the need for compromise with the EU and a softer Brexit? To start shifting taxation toward property wealth? To push up taxes on higher earners?
He’s boxed in by his party and his politics, and it’s hard to see him slipping into a phone box and re-emerging as a modern day superman.
https://www.google.com/maps/@50.7135612,-1.4008842,478m/data=!3m1!1e3
And no owner occupier housing costs is not a good proxy for overall housing costs, which is why overall costs are what should be used, not owner occupier costs which are different.
CPIH has the right weighting for housing, which is progress from CPI, but replacing housing costs with owner occupier housing costs and applies the weighting to that. Owner occupier housing costs (maintenance and Council Tax) have had much lower inflation than overall housing costs which is reflected in OBR data showing that OOH(NA) which is not used for CPIH has consistently been higher than OOH(RE) which is.
https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1588272552597651459
Sunak = von Rundstedt?
When did Britain’s armed forces become props for a Conservative Home Secretary?
https://twitter.com/Kevin_Maguire/status/1588213796526608384
https://twitter.com/davidtwilcock/status/1588182567626366978
This article came out in 2020, but in case anyone's forgotten, 3 of the current Justices worked with George W. Bush to get SCOTUS to vote 5-4 to end the Florida recount when GWB led by just 537 votes, making him POTUS. Thomas voted with the 5.
https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1588256390216581120
Edit - and the answer is actually 'since time immemorial.' All politicians do it.
And then Warnock to win the run-off because Walker won't have the benefit of Kemp's coattails.
Now that Surrey have moved County Hall to Reigate, are there any other councils in exile left?
Clue: compare their monetary policy over a sustained period of time.
It is more useful to think of inflation as the value of money rather than the price of goods and services. When you do so, you realise how disgracefully our monetary policy has been run for a very very long time, largely in order to pay for our low productivity and twin deficit (fiscal and current acct) economic model.
Town still kicking despite the upcoming Tory depression. London shrugging off the Conservative clusterfuck… for now.
Cheers!
quite a lot of stereotypes in one cartoon there.
In that case, the USA first denied the spy flights but then the Soviet side produced Powers and his equipment.
What happens if the Sevastopol case or similar goes down the same path?
(It might be possible to discuss this as grownups without saying Putin's a lily-livered poohead and DJ41 is a fascist retard for asking.)
If you have enough wind to power the country on a windy day, then you don't have to burn gas that day.
Of course, this is contingent on having lots of gas storage, which is rather where my plan falls down.
location that isn't in its own council area!
I've just spoken to Paraguay's vice minister of Foreign Affairs Raul Silvero.
He tells me: "Paraguay has never negotiated an issue as sensitive as immigration with Great Britain".
More at the @smh & @theage here: https://latika.me/BelizesaysNoWay https://twitter.com/latikambourke/status/1588119557977378817
Choppers were more common going to Skegness.
1. If you have enough wind power to power the country on a not very windy day, then you don't need to burn gas that day either. Sure, on a windy day you have redundant wind capacity you can't use but so what?
2. None of the above is dependent on gas storage.
The Dems have run an abysmal campaign and the fundamentals say a Red Wave. But GOP Senate candidate quality is fucking abysmal and Roe is a total wildcard (it could equally energise anti-abortion voters to make the victory final as much as pro-choice voters wanting to recover lost rights).
One thing to pay attention to in the Senate betting if you choose to go in is pay attention to who currently holds the seat and not just go with what you your gut says. For instance if the Dems don't win Pennsylvania then that isn't actually a loss for them as it is currently a GOP seat, Pat Toomey won it in 2016 by 1.5 points.
My advice, like in 2018, is leave everything well alone.
Or you install a shit load of electrolysers to make hydrogen from the excess wind power. Convert the gas network to hydrogen and then we can tell the Qataris to do one cos we won't need their gas no more.
So, I don't think it's their monetary policy that is preventing a spike in their inflation rate.
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2022/10/09/inflation-economy-biden-covid/
(My personal experience suggests that inflation is ebbing a bit. For instance, a local part of the Kroger chain (Fred Meyer's) was selling chicken drumsticks and thighs for 99 cents a pound last week. And beef short ribs for about 5 dollars a pound. Gasoline, as you probably know is off its peak by quite a bit:
source: https://www.gasbuddy.com/go/gas-prices-fall-again-northeast-jumps-west-coast-pulls-down-national-average )
Biden was hurt by his mixed messaging on gasoline prices. As someone who takes that troubled Swedish girl seriously, he wants higher prices for gasoline; as someone who wants Democrats elected, he want lower prices now. It would take a very clever person to sell both arguments at the same time.
In that case, the USA first denied the spy flights but then the Soviet side produced Powers and his equipment.
What happens if the Sevastopol case or similar goes down the same path?
(It might be possible to discuss this as grownups without saying Putin's a lily-livered poohead and DJ41 is a fascist retard for asking.)
Well they could try producing some evidence for it. That would be a start.
So we have vast amounts of unused energy infrastructure as a standard feature of the grid.
But don’t worry about it anyway. Wind power generators are making record mega profits, so much so that they’ll probably be hit by a windfall tax, because their cost of generation is so low compared with the price per kWh they receive.
I think government intervention is still a good idea at domestic or corporate scale (eg incentivising rooftop solar for businesses, and ensuring planning is not too onerous) but otherwise the market is well placed to do the heavy lifting.
4x current installed wind capacity and we’d be generating 10gw, a third of our total demand even now in very unfavourable conditions. There is ample room on the seabed for 4x current capacity, and much more besides.
'Hunt set to launch capital gains raid'
#TomorrowsPapersToday
Sign up for the Front Page newsletter
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/frontpage-newsletter https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1588299584237109250/photo/1
Every car on the road being electric will provide more storage, distributed, than any amount of mass storage imaginable ever would.
Power storage in homes or businesses, especially those with solar panels and/or electric cars are already increasingly financially viable too.
Within a decade we could have many tens of TWh of electrical storage distributed around the country.
I am not an economist, and haven't seen discussions by economists on this subject. That said, I am inclined to agree with the argument that the Fed kept rates too low, too long, and that their decision to do so was bad for the American economy in a number of ways. ("Mainstream" journalists here are, in my opinion, too slow to give Fed decisions the scrutiny they give to the decisions of elected officials.)