Merseyside Police are aware of details of injuries are being refered to on social media and the families have asked not for the specific details to be released
Who would Briton's rather have their pensions invested in, the US or the EU?
A good question. In the short term, I expect US stocks to do well, but longer term, I am very worried about what trade wars do to them US economy (although of course that will hit the EU too), and I am worried about the deterioration of the rule of law in the US. So, ultimately, I’d rather have my pension invested in the EU.
The pension fund that I am a trustee of has been overweight in US stocks for the last decade, specifically the large oligarchy type firms such as Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet and Mastercard. It has been an extremely successful strategy giving us exceptional returns. Past performance no guarantee of future etc but with Trump in the Whitehouse and Vance in the belfry I think any risk of antitrust provisions against these behemoths is limited and they will continue to do very well as a class. Really can't see anything in Europe that is even close.
I got a ten percent return investing in major tech stocks, over 11 months. TEN PERCENT
I liquidated it a few weeks ago, to be ready for my tax bill. I will now reinvest
I said at the time I invested this money, “I just don’t see how these companies fail, they are too big to go bust, the ML boom is not over, it is probably just beginning”. Some on here told me I was mad, big bust coming etc
These companies have grossly abused their market dominance and financial strength to buy out and destroy possible competitors. The long term consequences of this are not actually optimal but it is crazy not to be along for the ride, especially given the current political climate.
Yeah. Investing right now is all about investing in technology especially robotics and you-know-what
Who is gonna benefit from this? It’s very hard to call the small guys. To see an OpenAI emerging or an Anthropic
But the big seven are all SO big they’d have to calamitously fuck up - or be broken up - not to benefit from a tech revolution when they dominate tech and simply buy their smaller rivals
As you say Trump is not gonna get tough on them. They were all at his inauguration and they’re all donating and they are all genuflecting and enabling his political goals (eg meta allowing freer speech and abandoning lefty bias). Their power brings more power to the USA and to Trump
Nothing is a sure thing but for the next four years they are close to a sure thing
Investing in Tesla is a bet on Musk, not on the company's actual performance. The other six have long track records of financial delivery. But they need to be able to sell freely in markets outside the US in order to carry on growing. What looks invulnerable now can very quickly look quite precarious. A four year continuation of a bull market that has already been running for quite a while is a bold call.
I’m certainly not locking up my money for 4 years! I’m just saying it’s a pretty safe and likely lucrative ve investment now. I shall keep a watchful brief
Good - just be careful. If there is a correction, these stocks have the furthest to fall. Most of them have at least 50% of their sales outside the US.
Who would Briton's rather have their pensions invested in, the US or the EU?
A good question. In the short term, I expect US stocks to do well, but longer term, I am very worried about what trade wars do to them US economy (although of course that will hit the EU too), and I am worried about the deterioration of the rule of law in the US. So, ultimately, I’d rather have my pension invested in the EU.
The pension fund that I am a trustee of has been overweight in US stocks for the last decade, specifically the large oligarchy type firms such as Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet and Mastercard. It has been an extremely successful strategy giving us exceptional returns. Past performance no guarantee of future etc but with Trump in the Whitehouse and Vance in the belfry I think any risk of antitrust provisions against these behemoths is limited and they will continue to do very well as a class. Really can't see anything in Europe that is even close.
I got a ten percent return investing in major tech stocks, over 11 months. TEN PERCENT
I liquidated it a few weeks ago, to be ready for my tax bill. I will now reinvest
I said at the time I invested this money, “I just don’t see how these companies fail, they are too big to go bust, the ML boom is not over, it is probably just beginning”. Some on here told me I was mad, big bust coming etc
These companies have grossly abused their market dominance and financial strength to buy out and destroy possible competitors. The long term consequences of this are not actually optimal but it is crazy not to be along for the ride, especially given the current political climate.
Yeah. Investing right now is all about investing in technology especially robotics and you-know-what
Who is gonna benefit from this? It’s very hard to call the small guys. To see an OpenAI emerging or an Anthropic
But the big seven are all SO big they’d have to calamitously fuck up - or be broken up - not to benefit from a tech revolution when they dominate tech and simply buy their smaller rivals
As you say Trump is not gonna get tough on them. They were all at his inauguration and they’re all donating and they are all genuflecting and enabling his political goals (eg meta allowing freer speech and abandoning lefty bias). Their power brings more power to the USA and to Trump
Nothing is a sure thing but for the next four years they are close to a sure thing
Investing in Tesla is a bet on Musk, not on the company's actual performance. The other six have long track records of financial delivery. But they need to be able to sell freely in markets outside the US in order to carry on growing. What looks invulnerable now can very quickly look quite precarious. A four year continuation of a bull market that has already been running for quite a while is a bold call.
Interesting thing about Musk's new DOGE position. It's gone well beyond "cost cutting".
The executive order puts him in charge of US government software, and gives him unfettered access to all unclassified US government information.
There must be a suspicion he could use his position to further his own interests rather than those of the American people. Although I guess that's bang in the spirit of things now.
Indeed.
Now that I understand his.upbringing a bit better, with his father conditioning him to be a new Von Braun, I wouldn't trust him to post a letter.
Interesting thing about Musk's new DOGE position. It's gone well beyond "cost cutting".
The executive order puts him in charge of US government software, and gives him unfettered access to all unclassified US government information.
There must be a suspicion he could use his position to further his own interests rather than those of the American people. Although I guess that's bang in the spirit of things now.
I think your spellchecker somehow autocorrected "presumption" to "suspicion".
I was scared to say that in case he's reading PB and decides to squash me with his almighty powers.
You know what these Free Speech absolutists are like.
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.
I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.
Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.
But it's not just AI where we can outcompete the EU, biotech is the next big flashpoint where the EU is about to regulate the industry into another cul-de-sac while we will remain free of these interferences. I was also quite pleased to see that Reeves has finally said aloud what the whole City already knows, the current financial regulations have completely stifled risk taking and junking it and also junking stamp duty on shares will mean people take more risk with their capital because the returns will be available. We need to be a country where Monzo and Revolut are happy to list on the LSE rather than hop over pond to get a better valuation because the American market encourages people to take risk.
Reeves has said some sensible things recently
Here’s a mad thought. Is it possible that brutal economic and political reality have forced Reeves and Starmer to U turn, or come up with new ideas? That might actually work?
Evidence
Reeves backtracking on Nom Dom. Also saying “let’s go for Heathrow runway 3 and fuck Net Zero”. Her remarks about the City and more
Meanwhile Starmer sounds like Reform announcing all these inquiries on culture war issues and they’ve now proposed to reverse some of the mad education crap as well. And now Starmer says yes there is a Brexit benefit, we can regulate for ourselves, let’s go for it
Hmmmmm
It will be the irony of ironies if I end up pleased that I voted for them, given that I only voted for them to annoy and discombobulate @kinabalu
I think they might finally have realised if they don't grow the economy Labour will face an extinction level election in 2029, under 50 seats bad.
The next big step is to shit can Ed Miliband and get someone who will build a proper energy generation network immediately and rip up the planning rules on power generation. Bung Rolls Royce £5bn to get the first 2 SMRs built while we're at it.
What evidence do you have that SMR's can be built within budget ?
Nuclear energy just seems to suffer from magical thinking ever since it was too cheap to meter.
The security measures & costs will remain unchanged. The civils won't change per MW of capacity.
The ONLY possible way they could become cheap is if we got huge economies of scale if they were manufactured in significant numbers. However historically the learning curve hasn't worked everywhere for nuclear - some would argue its been negative in USA and UK over last 30 years, but thats as much safety post Chernobyl
South Korea is far better - but how many new stations they open is a bit in the balance.
We don't know, we do know that we need reliable always on power and we also know that traditional nuclear is impossible to delivery on time and on budget, we know that renewables aren't going to provide reliable always on power, we know that fusion etc... will need another 20 years and $150bn invested before we get anywhere near commercialisation and we also know that power demand is only going to go up from here as we pump more energy into powerful computing clusters for stuff like AI.
These are the known factors, what energy generation technology fills that gap without shitting up the climate? SMRs offer us a chance of doing it and really the cost is £5-7bn, if it works then we have a leadership position globally with manufacturing and tech for the next big energy boom. If it doesn't then all we've lost is £5-7bn that was going to be pissed away on pensions anyway.
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
It does if they were targeted for being female. I think it's quite likely that was the case.
Jack the Ripper wasn't a terrorist though.
Are you seeking a distinction between different types of misogyny?
Nature of the crime. If he'd set of a bomb, that would have ***automatically*** made it terrorism.
How come the people blowing up ULEZ cameras haven't been charged with that then?
Not targeting people?
Ah, so suddenly it's not automatically terrorism if people aren't targeted. But the Terrorism Act is clear that property counts, not just people - which makes sense, if you consider some of the IRA bombings.
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
It was a racially-motivated hate crime.
I can't see that in any of the reporting. Could you send us a link?
At school, Rudakubana was known to talk of "Britain needing a genocide like Rwanda" and, at a football match in which he played around the age of 15, he declared the need for a "white genocide".
Still no evidence put forward in court that that's why he did it. If we're speculating, incel-based gender stuff looks more likely, particularly bearing in mind we don't know the ethnicity of all those he stabbed.
Who would Briton's rather have their pensions invested in, the US or the EU?
A good question. In the short term, I expect US stocks to do well, but longer term, I am very worried about what trade wars do to them US economy (although of course that will hit the EU too), and I am worried about the deterioration of the rule of law in the US. So, ultimately, I’d rather have my pension invested in the EU.
The pension fund that I am a trustee of has been overweight in US stocks for the last decade, specifically the large oligarchy type firms such as Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet and Mastercard. It has been an extremely successful strategy giving us exceptional returns. Past performance no guarantee of future etc but with Trump in the Whitehouse and Vance in the belfry I think any risk of antitrust provisions against these behemoths is limited and they will continue to do very well as a class. Really can't see anything in Europe that is even close.
I got a ten percent return investing in major tech stocks, over 11 months. TEN PERCENT
I liquidated it a few weeks ago, to be ready for my tax bill. I will now reinvest
I said at the time I invested this money, “I just don’t see how these companies fail, they are too big to go bust, the ML boom is not over, it is probably just beginning”. Some on here told me I was mad, big bust coming etc
These companies have grossly abused their market dominance and financial strength to buy out and destroy possible competitors. The long term consequences of this are not actually optimal but it is crazy not to be along for the ride, especially given the current political climate.
Yeah. Investing right now is all about investing in technology especially robotics and you-know-what
Who is gonna benefit from this? It’s very hard to call the small guys. To see an OpenAI emerging or an Anthropic
But the big seven are all SO big they’d have to calamitously fuck up - or be broken up - not to benefit from a tech revolution when they dominate tech and simply buy their smaller rivals
As you say Trump is not gonna get tough on them. They were all at his inauguration and they’re all donating and they are all genuflecting and enabling his political goals (eg meta allowing freer speech and abandoning lefty bias). Their power brings more power to the USA and to Trump
Nothing is a sure thing but for the next four years they are close to a sure thing
Investing in Tesla is a bet on Musk, not on the company's actual performance. The other six have long track records of financial delivery. But they need to be able to sell freely in markets outside the US in order to carry on growing. What looks invulnerable now can very quickly look quite precarious. A four year continuation of a bull market that has already been running for quite a while is a bold call.
US stocks are a bit like UK housing though.
Until they're not! My concern is that in a time of significant geopolitical uncertainty, seeing even very good businesses - as six of the Big 7 clearly are - as sure fire bets when so much of their income is non-US is not sensible. My inclination from here would be to hold but buy no more, until there is a dip. I would not go near Tesla!
Who would Briton's rather have their pensions invested in, the US or the EU?
A good question. In the short term, I expect US stocks to do well, but longer term, I am very worried about what trade wars do to them US economy (although of course that will hit the EU too), and I am worried about the deterioration of the rule of law in the US. So, ultimately, I’d rather have my pension invested in the EU.
The pension fund that I am a trustee of has been overweight in US stocks for the last decade, specifically the large oligarchy type firms such as Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet and Mastercard. It has been an extremely successful strategy giving us exceptional returns. Past performance no guarantee of future etc but with Trump in the Whitehouse and Vance in the belfry I think any risk of antitrust provisions against these behemoths is limited and they will continue to do very well as a class. Really can't see anything in Europe that is even close.
I got a ten percent return investing in major tech stocks, over less than 10 months. TEN PERCENT
I liquidated it a few weeks ago, to be ready for my tax bill. I will now reinvest
I said at the time I invested this money, “I just don’t see how these companies fail, they are too big to go bust, the ML boom is not over, it is probably just beginning”. Some on here told me I was mad, big bust coming etc
Nothing screams top of the market more than "can't fail" and "too big to go bust" and using capitals TEN PERCENT !
Nothing screams poor savings practice like investment horizons of 10 months and dipping in and out of the market.
Maybe we can harness AI to make myriad meme coins and a new wave of NFT's
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
Have we done this?
"ICC prosecutor seeks arrest of Taliban leaders over persecution of women"
"The International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor on Thursday said he was seeking arrest warrants against senior Taliban leaders in Afghanistan over the persecution of women, a crime against humanity.
"Karim Khan said there were reasonable grounds to suspect that Supreme Leader Haibatullah Akhundzada and chief justice Abdul Hakim Haqqani "bear criminal responsibility for the crime against humanity of persecution on gender grounds".
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
It does if they were targeted for being female. I think it's quite likely that was the case.
Jack the Ripper wasn't a terrorist though.
Are you seeking a distinction between different types of misogyny?
Nature of the crime. If he'd set of a bomb, that would have ***automatically*** made it terrorism.
How come the people blowing up ULEZ cameras haven't been charged with that then?
Not targeting people?
Ah, so suddenly it's not automatically terrorism if people aren't targeted. But the Terrorism Act is clear that property counts, not just people - which makes sense, if you consider some of the IRA bombings.
If the police want to do people blowing up ULEZ cameras for terrorism, that's fine by me.
EDIT:
Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
I guess blowing up ULEZ cameras isn't considered serious damage to property.
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
It was a racially-motivated hate crime.
I can't see that in any of the reporting. Could you send us a link?
At school, Rudakubana was known to talk of "Britain needing a genocide like Rwanda" and, at a football match in which he played around the age of 15, he declared the need for a "white genocide".
Still no evidence put forward in court that that's why he did it. If we're speculating, incel-based gender stuff looks more likely, particularly bearing in mind we don't know the ethnicity of all those he stabbed.
"More likely" = "less problematic for my worldview"
We are going to have Rudakubana for the rest of his life. Don't kill him. Keep him alive. Learn from him. How did someone so young and so isolated get so totally, destructively, murderously fucked up? Find out and it could help to prevent it happening again - here and elsewhere.
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
It was a racially-motivated hate crime.
I can't see that in any of the reporting. Could you send us a link?
At school, Rudakubana was known to talk of "Britain needing a genocide like Rwanda" and, at a football match in which he played around the age of 15, he declared the need for a "white genocide".
Still no evidence put forward in court that that's why he did it. If we're speculating, incel-based gender stuff looks more likely, particularly bearing in mind we don't know the ethnicity of all those he stabbed.
Someone talking about a "white genocide" is racially motivated. There's really no other way of looking at it.
We are going to have Rudakubana for the rest of his life. Don't kill him. Keep him alive. Learn from him. How did someone so young and so isolated get so totally, destructively, murderously fucked up? Find out and it could help to prevent it happening again - here and elsewhere.
I’m not saying kill him. I am saying Give him the choice and tell him, You’re not ever getting out, this is it
If he refuses, and chooses a lifetime of slow mental torture, fair enough, if he wants to die, great, we save loads of money and a piece of near-worthless human crap is gone
Who would Briton's rather have their pensions invested in, the US or the EU?
A good question. In the short term, I expect US stocks to do well, but longer term, I am very worried about what trade wars do to them US economy (although of course that will hit the EU too), and I am worried about the deterioration of the rule of law in the US. So, ultimately, I’d rather have my pension invested in the EU.
The pension fund that I am a trustee of has been overweight in US stocks for the last decade, specifically the large oligarchy type firms such as Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet and Mastercard. It has been an extremely successful strategy giving us exceptional returns. Past performance no guarantee of future etc but with Trump in the Whitehouse and Vance in the belfry I think any risk of antitrust provisions against these behemoths is limited and they will continue to do very well as a class. Really can't see anything in Europe that is even close.
I got a ten percent return investing in major tech stocks, over less than 10 months. TEN PERCENT
I liquidated it a few weeks ago, to be ready for my tax bill. I will now reinvest
I said at the time I invested this money, “I just don’t see how these companies fail, they are too big to go bust, the ML boom is not over, it is probably just beginning”. Some on here told me I was mad, big bust coming etc
Nothing screams top of the market more than "can't fail" and "too big to go bust" and using capitals TEN PERCENT !
Nothing screams poor savings practice like investment horizons of 10 months and dipping in and out of the market.
Maybe we can harness AI to make myriad meme coins and a new wave of NFT's
Sounds bubble Klaxon
I believe you were one of the PB-ers advising me, with hoots of derision, not to invest in tech and the big 7 a year ago. And I made TEN PERCENT in about 9 and a half months
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
It does if they were targeted for being female. I think it's quite likely that was the case.
Jack the Ripper wasn't a terrorist though.
Are you seeking a distinction between different types of misogyny?
Nature of the crime. If he'd set of a bomb, that would have ***automatically*** made it terrorism.
How come the people blowing up ULEZ cameras haven't been charged with that then?
Not targeting people?
Ah, so suddenly it's not automatically terrorism if people aren't targeted. But the Terrorism Act is clear that property counts, not just people - which makes sense, if you consider some of the IRA bombings.
If the police want to do people blowing up ULEZ cameras for terrorism, that's fine by me.
EDIT:
Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
I guess blowing up ULEZ cameras isn't considered serious damage to property.
Including all the cars and houses around? Of course it is.
Who would Briton's rather have their pensions invested in, the US or the EU?
A good question. In the short term, I expect US stocks to do well, but longer term, I am very worried about what trade wars do to them US economy (although of course that will hit the EU too), and I am worried about the deterioration of the rule of law in the US. So, ultimately, I’d rather have my pension invested in the EU.
The pension fund that I am a trustee of has been overweight in US stocks for the last decade, specifically the large oligarchy type firms such as Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet and Mastercard. It has been an extremely successful strategy giving us exceptional returns. Past performance no guarantee of future etc but with Trump in the Whitehouse and Vance in the belfry I think any risk of antitrust provisions against these behemoths is limited and they will continue to do very well as a class. Really can't see anything in Europe that is even close.
I got a ten percent return investing in major tech stocks, over less than 10 months. TEN PERCENT
I liquidated it a few weeks ago, to be ready for my tax bill. I will now reinvest
I said at the time I invested this money, “I just don’t see how these companies fail, they are too big to go bust, the ML boom is not over, it is probably just beginning”. Some on here told me I was mad, big bust coming etc
Nothing screams top of the market more than "can't fail" and "too big to go bust" and using capitals TEN PERCENT !
Nothing screams poor savings practice like investment horizons of 10 months and dipping in and out of the market.
Maybe we can harness AI to make myriad meme coins and a new wave of NFT's
Sounds bubble Klaxon
In this context, at least, @Leon is our shoeshine boy:
Merseyside Police are aware of details of injuries are being refered to on social media and the families have asked not for the specific details to be released
Sky reporters upset that while they will “respect the wishes of the families” to not run injury p0rn stories for the next 24 hours, others are free to report what was said by the judge in open court?
We are going to have Rudakubana for the rest of his life. Don't kill him. Keep him alive. Learn from him. How did someone so young and so isolated get so totally, destructively, murderously fucked up? Find out and it could help to prevent it happening again - here and elsewhere.
We need to properly find out why it happened and what institutional failures there were as opposed to getting friendly talking heads, like James O'Brien to blame Amazon and Facebook.
Who would Briton's rather have their pensions invested in, the US or the EU?
A good question. In the short term, I expect US stocks to do well, but longer term, I am very worried about what trade wars do to them US economy (although of course that will hit the EU too), and I am worried about the deterioration of the rule of law in the US. So, ultimately, I’d rather have my pension invested in the EU.
The pension fund that I am a trustee of has been overweight in US stocks for the last decade, specifically the large oligarchy type firms such as Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet and Mastercard. It has been an extremely successful strategy giving us exceptional returns. Past performance no guarantee of future etc but with Trump in the Whitehouse and Vance in the belfry I think any risk of antitrust provisions against these behemoths is limited and they will continue to do very well as a class. Really can't see anything in Europe that is even close.
I got a ten percent return investing in major tech stocks, over less than 10 months. TEN PERCENT
I liquidated it a few weeks ago, to be ready for my tax bill. I will now reinvest
I said at the time I invested this money, “I just don’t see how these companies fail, they are too big to go bust, the ML boom is not over, it is probably just beginning”. Some on here told me I was mad, big bust coming etc
Nothing screams top of the market more than "can't fail" and "too big to go bust" and using capitals TEN PERCENT !
Nothing screams poor savings practice like investment horizons of 10 months and dipping in and out of the market.
Maybe we can harness AI to make myriad meme coins and a new wave of NFT's
Sounds bubble Klaxon
I believe you were one of the PB-ers advising me, with hoots of derision, not to invest in tech and the big 7 a year ago. And I made TEN PERCENT in about 9 and a half months
Full disclosure - I have been investing in them for a while. It's gone very well. But I am now seriously thinking it's time to have a rest. I have a call with my adviser in an hour to see if he agrees. He knows better than me so I'll listen very carefully to what he says.
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
It does if they were targeted for being female. I think it's quite likely that was the case.
Jack the Ripper wasn't a terrorist though.
Are you seeking a distinction between different types of misogyny?
Nature of the crime. If he'd set of a bomb, that would have ***automatically*** made it terrorism.
How come the people blowing up ULEZ cameras haven't been charged with that then?
Not targeting people?
Ah, so suddenly it's not automatically terrorism if people aren't targeted. But the Terrorism Act is clear that property counts, not just people - which makes sense, if you consider some of the IRA bombings.
If the police want to do people blowing up ULEZ cameras for terrorism, that's fine by me.
EDIT:
Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
I guess blowing up ULEZ cameras isn't considered serious damage to property.
Including all the cars and houses around? Of course it is.
Well it looks like this guy was done by counter-terrorist police:
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
It was a racially-motivated hate crime.
I can't see that in any of the reporting. Could you send us a link?
At school, Rudakubana was known to talk of "Britain needing a genocide like Rwanda" and, at a football match in which he played around the age of 15, he declared the need for a "white genocide".
Still no evidence put forward in court that that's why he did it. If we're speculating, incel-based gender stuff looks more likely, particularly bearing in mind we don't know the ethnicity of all those he stabbed.
Someone talking about a "white genocide" is racially motivated. There's really no other way of looking at it.
Certainly. But that was 3 years before he did it, and his referrals to Prevent included his fascination with school massacres in the US. Perhaps that was the reason?
Who would Briton's rather have their pensions invested in, the US or the EU?
A good question. In the short term, I expect US stocks to do well, but longer term, I am very worried about what trade wars do to them US economy (although of course that will hit the EU too), and I am worried about the deterioration of the rule of law in the US. So, ultimately, I’d rather have my pension invested in the EU.
The pension fund that I am a trustee of has been overweight in US stocks for the last decade, specifically the large oligarchy type firms such as Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet and Mastercard. It has been an extremely successful strategy giving us exceptional returns. Past performance no guarantee of future etc but with Trump in the Whitehouse and Vance in the belfry I think any risk of antitrust provisions against these behemoths is limited and they will continue to do very well as a class. Really can't see anything in Europe that is even close.
I got a ten percent return investing in major tech stocks, over less than 10 months. TEN PERCENT
I liquidated it a few weeks ago, to be ready for my tax bill. I will now reinvest
I said at the time I invested this money, “I just don’t see how these companies fail, they are too big to go bust, the ML boom is not over, it is probably just beginning”. Some on here told me I was mad, big bust coming etc
Nothing screams top of the market more than "can't fail" and "too big to go bust" and using capitals TEN PERCENT !
Nothing screams poor savings practice like investment horizons of 10 months and dipping in and out of the market.
Maybe we can harness AI to make myriad meme coins and a new wave of NFT's
Sounds bubble Klaxon
In this context, at least, @Leon is our shoeshine boy:
About ten months ago I came into a windfall, I discussed where to invest it on here, and we chatted
It is in the nature of my job, creative self employment, that my income varies wildly, and I have to be prepped for sudden movements, big tax bills. I have other long term investments but I didn’t want to touch them (bonds, ISAs, boring stuff)
I decided that the best way to use my money, but keep it pretty liquid, was to invest in US (and other global) tech. I made ten percent in ten months, as discussed (despite skepticism on here). I then liquidated it - as planned - for multiple reasons, including tax
Now I shall reinvest. I see this as risk capital seeking a rewarding but not trouble free home
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
It does if they were targeted for being female. I think it's quite likely that was the case.
Jack the Ripper wasn't a terrorist though.
Are you seeking a distinction between different types of misogyny?
Nature of the crime. If he'd set of a bomb, that would have ***automatically*** made it terrorism.
How come the people blowing up ULEZ cameras haven't been charged with that then?
Not targeting people?
Ah, so suddenly it's not automatically terrorism if people aren't targeted. But the Terrorism Act is clear that property counts, not just people - which makes sense, if you consider some of the IRA bombings.
If the police want to do people blowing up ULEZ cameras for terrorism, that's fine by me.
EDIT:
Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
I guess blowing up ULEZ cameras isn't considered serious damage to property.
So we've gone full circle to a bomb not being serious damage.
Who would Briton's rather have their pensions invested in, the US or the EU?
A good question. In the short term, I expect US stocks to do well, but longer term, I am very worried about what trade wars do to them US economy (although of course that will hit the EU too), and I am worried about the deterioration of the rule of law in the US. So, ultimately, I’d rather have my pension invested in the EU.
The pension fund that I am a trustee of has been overweight in US stocks for the last decade, specifically the large oligarchy type firms such as Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet and Mastercard. It has been an extremely successful strategy giving us exceptional returns. Past performance no guarantee of future etc but with Trump in the Whitehouse and Vance in the belfry I think any risk of antitrust provisions against these behemoths is limited and they will continue to do very well as a class. Really can't see anything in Europe that is even close.
I got a ten percent return investing in major tech stocks, over less than 10 months. TEN PERCENT
I liquidated it a few weeks ago, to be ready for my tax bill. I will now reinvest
I said at the time I invested this money, “I just don’t see how these companies fail, they are too big to go bust, the ML boom is not over, it is probably just beginning”. Some on here told me I was mad, big bust coming etc
Nothing screams top of the market more than "can't fail" and "too big to go bust" and using capitals TEN PERCENT !
Nothing screams poor savings practice like investment horizons of 10 months and dipping in and out of the market.
Maybe we can harness AI to make myriad meme coins and a new wave of NFT's
Sounds bubble Klaxon
I believe you were one of the PB-ers advising me, with hoots of derision, not to invest in tech and the big 7 a year ago. And I made TEN PERCENT in about 9 and a half months
Full disclosure - I have been investing in them for a while. It's gone very well. But I am now seriously thinking it's time to have a rest. I have a call with my adviser in an hour to see if he agrees. He knows better than me so I'll listen very carefully to what he says.
I put some of my wife's SIPP into a techfund. It fell about 43%, since then it has just motored ahead and is now up 63%.
We are going to have Rudakubana for the rest of his life. Don't kill him. Keep him alive. Learn from him. How did someone so young and so isolated get so totally, destructively, murderously fucked up? Find out and it could help to prevent it happening again - here and elsewhere.
We need to properly find out why it happened and what institutional failures there were as opposed to getting friendly talking heads, like James O'Brien to blame Amazon and Facebook.
I also think we need to get inside his head. I have tried to avoid the detail of the case as it's too harrowing to deal with but he seems to have been a loner who self-radicalised rather than doing it as a result of going to a mosque. If that is the case, how does that process happen? What makes some people more likely to go down that path etc? Know that and you have a better chance to spot the signs.
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
It was a racially-motivated hate crime.
I can't see that in any of the reporting. Could you send us a link?
At school, Rudakubana was known to talk of "Britain needing a genocide like Rwanda" and, at a football match in which he played around the age of 15, he declared the need for a "white genocide".
Still no evidence put forward in court that that's why he did it. If we're speculating, incel-based gender stuff looks more likely, particularly bearing in mind we don't know the ethnicity of all those he stabbed.
Indeed but what makes a young male incel loner do something this extreme rather than say, just voting for Trump or Reform or another nationalist right party on the rise in the West? The jihadi material he was reading online may be connected
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
It was a racially-motivated hate crime.
I can't see that in any of the reporting. Could you send us a link?
At school, Rudakubana was known to talk of "Britain needing a genocide like Rwanda" and, at a football match in which he played around the age of 15, he declared the need for a "white genocide".
Still no evidence put forward in court that that's why he did it. If we're speculating, incel-based gender stuff looks more likely, particularly bearing in mind we don't know the ethnicity of all those he stabbed.
Indeed but what makes a young male incel loner do something this extreme rather than say, just voting for Trump?
You just try voting for Trump in the UK without a US passport.
We are going to have Rudakubana for the rest of his life. Don't kill him. Keep him alive. Learn from him. How did someone so young and so isolated get so totally, destructively, murderously fucked up? Find out and it could help to prevent it happening again - here and elsewhere.
We need to properly find out why it happened and what institutional failures there were as opposed to getting friendly talking heads, like James O'Brien to blame Amazon and Facebook.
I also think we need to get inside his head. I have tried to avoid the detail of the case as it's too harrowing to deal with but he seems to have been a loner who self-radicalised rather than doing it as a result of going to a mosque. If that is the case, how does that process happen? What makes some people more likely to go down that path etc? Know that and you have a better chance to spot the signs.
Yes, that as well.
I started reading Charlie Astor's thread on twitter but stopped once it got to a certain point. I found it distressing and really upsetting and could feel myself starting to well up and I am a 59 year old guy who is not overly emotional.
Who would Briton's rather have their pensions invested in, the US or the EU?
A good question. In the short term, I expect US stocks to do well, but longer term, I am very worried about what trade wars do to them US economy (although of course that will hit the EU too), and I am worried about the deterioration of the rule of law in the US. So, ultimately, I’d rather have my pension invested in the EU.
The pension fund that I am a trustee of has been overweight in US stocks for the last decade, specifically the large oligarchy type firms such as Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet and Mastercard. It has been an extremely successful strategy giving us exceptional returns. Past performance no guarantee of future etc but with Trump in the Whitehouse and Vance in the belfry I think any risk of antitrust provisions against these behemoths is limited and they will continue to do very well as a class. Really can't see anything in Europe that is even close.
I got a ten percent return investing in major tech stocks, over less than 10 months. TEN PERCENT
I liquidated it a few weeks ago, to be ready for my tax bill. I will now reinvest
I said at the time I invested this money, “I just don’t see how these companies fail, they are too big to go bust, the ML boom is not over, it is probably just beginning”. Some on here told me I was mad, big bust coming etc
Nothing screams top of the market more than "can't fail" and "too big to go bust" and using capitals TEN PERCENT !
Nothing screams poor savings practice like investment horizons of 10 months and dipping in and out of the market.
Maybe we can harness AI to make myriad meme coins and a new wave of NFT's
Sounds bubble Klaxon
In this context, at least, @Leon is our shoeshine boy:
About ten months ago I came into a windfall, I discussed where to invest it on here, and we chatted
It is in the nature of my job, creative self employment, that my income varies wildly, and I have to be prepped for sudden movements, big tax bills. I have other long term investments but I didn’t want to touch them (bonds, ISAs, boring stuff)
I decided that the best way to use my money, but keep it pretty liquid, was to invest in US (and other global) tech. I made ten percent in ten months, as discussed (despite skepticism on here). I then liquidated it - as planned - for multiple reasons, including tax
Now I shall reinvest. I see this as risk capital seeking a rewarding but not trouble free home
You're much braver than I. The geeks who look after my modest pension pot seem to use higher maths to analyse trends that are invisible to the naked eye and trading algorithms that respond to events in microseconds. The end result might be comparable (up 11.3% YoY) but the experience is far more relaxing.
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
It does if they were targeted for being female. I think it's quite likely that was the case.
Jack the Ripper wasn't a terrorist though.
Are you seeking a distinction between different types of misogyny?
Nature of the crime. If he'd set of a bomb, that would have ***automatically*** made it terrorism.
How come the people blowing up ULEZ cameras haven't been charged with that then?
Not targeting people?
Ah, so suddenly it's not automatically terrorism if people aren't targeted. But the Terrorism Act is clear that property counts, not just people - which makes sense, if you consider some of the IRA bombings.
If the police want to do people blowing up ULEZ cameras for terrorism, that's fine by me.
EDIT:
Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
I guess blowing up ULEZ cameras isn't considered serious damage to property.
So we've gone full circle to a bomb not being serious damage.
I was asked why people blowing up cameras aren't being done for terrorism (seems that they are at least being investigated by terrorism police). I gave an answer.
But, I find it interesting that we've gone from why Rudakubana might be in a different category to Wayne Couzens, Jack the Ripper etc., to "year, but people blowing up ULEZ cameras are also terrorists."
Can these people not see that there might be a difference between blowing up people and blowing up ULEZ cameras? Now, maybe the authorities should be using every piece of legislation they can to stop people causing damage to infrastructure like ULEZ cameras. But just because they aren't doesn't mean that murdering girls en masse isn't terrorism.
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
It was a racially-motivated hate crime.
I can't see that in any of the reporting. Could you send us a link?
At school, Rudakubana was known to talk of "Britain needing a genocide like Rwanda" and, at a football match in which he played around the age of 15, he declared the need for a "white genocide".
Still no evidence put forward in court that that's why he did it. If we're speculating, incel-based gender stuff looks more likely, particularly bearing in mind we don't know the ethnicity of all those he stabbed.
"More likely" = "less problematic for my worldview"
His actions were horrific and, thankfully, he will now be locked up for a very long time. I don't see how the exact nature of the twisted thoughts going through his head make much difference to that or to anyone's Weltanschauung. Nor do I see much point in all this speculation. Let's wait to hear what the inquiry says. Far too many people have sought to use these tragic events to further their own political agendas based on half-truths and flat out disinformation already.
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
It does if they were targeted for being female. I think it's quite likely that was the case.
Jack the Ripper wasn't a terrorist though.
Are you seeking a distinction between different types of misogyny?
Nature of the crime. If he'd set of a bomb, that would have ***automatically*** made it terrorism.
How come the people blowing up ULEZ cameras haven't been charged with that then?
Not targeting people?
Ah, so suddenly it's not automatically terrorism if people aren't targeted. But the Terrorism Act is clear that property counts, not just people - which makes sense, if you consider some of the IRA bombings.
If the police want to do people blowing up ULEZ cameras for terrorism, that's fine by me.
EDIT:
Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
I guess blowing up ULEZ cameras isn't considered serious damage to property.
So we've gone full circle to a bomb not being serious damage.
I was asked why people blowing up cameras aren't being done for terrorism (seems that they are at least being investigated by terrorism police). I gave an answer.
But, I find it interesting that we've gone from why Rudakubana might be in a different category to Wayne Couzens, Jack the Ripper etc., to "year, but people blowing up ULEZ cameras are also terrorists."
Can these people not see that there might be a difference between blowing up people and blowing up ULEZ cameras? Now, maybe the authorities should be using every piece of legislation they can to stop people causing damage to infrastructure like ULEZ cameras. But just because they aren't doesn't mean that murdering girls en masse isn't terrorism.
I don't actually think people blowing up ULEZ cameras are terrorists. I was just using it to demonstrate that your position was absurd - and by extension, the law too.
I think terrorism needs quite a substantial and considered ideological grounding. I don't think there is evidence that's the case in Southport or for the ULEZ people.
Lots of these jobs were subsidised through in-work taxpayer financed benefits. Perhaps they'll find something more productive to do?
They were working at a private sector supermarket, yes more could be using cafes but Labour's taxes and extra costs on business haven't helped. Most will now be on state benefits for at least the next few months, hardly more productive
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
It does if they were targeted for being female. I think it's quite likely that was the case.
Jack the Ripper wasn't a terrorist though.
Are you seeking a distinction between different types of misogyny?
Nature of the crime. If he'd set of a bomb, that would have ***automatically*** made it terrorism.
How come the people blowing up ULEZ cameras haven't been charged with that then?
Not targeting people?
Ah, so suddenly it's not automatically terrorism if people aren't targeted. But the Terrorism Act is clear that property counts, not just people - which makes sense, if you consider some of the IRA bombings.
If the police want to do people blowing up ULEZ cameras for terrorism, that's fine by me.
EDIT:
Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
I guess blowing up ULEZ cameras isn't considered serious damage to property.
So we've gone full circle to a bomb not being serious damage.
I was asked why people blowing up cameras aren't being done for terrorism (seems that they are at least being investigated by terrorism police). I gave an answer.
But, I find it interesting that we've gone from why Rudakubana might be in a different category to Wayne Couzens, Jack the Ripper etc., to "year, but people blowing up ULEZ cameras are also terrorists."
Can these people not see that there might be a difference between blowing up people and blowing up ULEZ cameras? Now, maybe the authorities should be using every piece of legislation they can to stop people causing damage to infrastructure like ULEZ cameras. But just because they aren't doesn't mean that murdering girls en masse isn't terrorism.
I don't actually think people blowing up ULEZ cameras are terrorists. I was just using it to demonstrate that your position was absurd - and by extension, the law too.
I think terrorism needs quite a substantial and considered ideological grounding. I don't think there is evidence that's the case in Southport or for the ULEZ people.
Sadly this won't stop speculation being fuelled online by conspiracy theorists.
Although there were some things linked to terrorism such as Al Qaeda Manual and something to do with Ricin I agree with you. I do not think these alone are evidence and I doubt it is terrorist related. I am not sure what people who obsess over this want apart from any crime to be labelled terrorism.
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.
I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.
Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.
But it's not just AI where we can outcompete the EU, biotech is the next big flashpoint where the EU is about to regulate the industry into another cul-de-sac while we will remain free of these interferences. I was also quite pleased to see that Reeves has finally said aloud what the whole City already knows, the current financial regulations have completely stifled risk taking and junking it and also junking stamp duty on shares will mean people take more risk with their capital because the returns will be available. We need to be a country where Monzo and Revolut are happy to list on the LSE rather than hop over pond to get a better valuation because the American market encourages people to take risk.
Reeves has said some sensible things recently
Here’s a mad thought. Is it possible that brutal economic and political reality have forced Reeves and Starmer to U turn, or come up with new ideas? That might actually work?
Evidence
Reeves backtracking on Nom Dom. Also saying “let’s go for Heathrow runway 3 and fuck Net Zero”. Her remarks about the City and more
Meanwhile Starmer sounds like Reform announcing all these inquiries on culture war issues and they’ve now proposed to reverse some of the mad education crap as well. And now Starmer says yes there is a Brexit benefit, we can regulate for ourselves, let’s go for it
Hmmmmm
It will be the irony of ironies if I end up pleased that I voted for them, given that I only voted for them to annoy and discombobulate @kinabalu
I think they might finally have realised if they don't grow the economy Labour will face an extinction level election in 2029, under 50 seats bad.
The next big step is to shit can Ed Miliband and get someone who will build a proper energy generation network immediately and rip up the planning rules on power generation. Bung Rolls Royce £5bn to get the first 2 SMRs built while we're at it.
What evidence do you have that SMR's can be built within budget ?
Nuclear energy just seems to suffer from magical thinking ever since it was too cheap to meter.
The security measures & costs will remain unchanged. The civils won't change per MW of capacity.
The ONLY possible way they could become cheap is if we got huge economies of scale if they were manufactured in significant numbers. However historically the learning curve hasn't worked everywhere for nuclear - some would argue its been negative in USA and UK over last 30 years, but thats as much safety post Chernobyl
South Korea is far better - but how many new stations they open is a bit in the balance.
We don't know, we do know that we need reliable always on power and we also know that traditional nuclear is impossible to delivery on time and on budget, we know that renewables aren't going to provide reliable always on power, we know that fusion etc... will need another 20 years and $150bn invested before we get anywhere near commercialisation and we also know that power demand is only going to go up from here as we pump more energy into powerful computing clusters for stuff like AI.
These are the known factors, what energy generation technology fills that gap without shitting up the climate? SMRs offer us a chance of doing it and really the cost is £5-7bn, if it works then we have a leadership position globally with manufacturing and tech for the next big energy boom. If it doesn't then all we've lost is £5-7bn that was going to be pissed away on pensions anyway.
Hence my suggestion we repurpose half of the CO2 capture money. We have even less idea of how that will work at scale.
Who would Briton's rather have their pensions invested in, the US or the EU?
A good question. In the short term, I expect US stocks to do well, but longer term, I am very worried about what trade wars do to them US economy (although of course that will hit the EU too), and I am worried about the deterioration of the rule of law in the US. So, ultimately, I’d rather have my pension invested in the EU.
The pension fund that I am a trustee of has been overweight in US stocks for the last decade, specifically the large oligarchy type firms such as Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet and Mastercard. It has been an extremely successful strategy giving us exceptional returns. Past performance no guarantee of future etc but with Trump in the Whitehouse and Vance in the belfry I think any risk of antitrust provisions against these behemoths is limited and they will continue to do very well as a class. Really can't see anything in Europe that is even close.
I got a ten percent return investing in major tech stocks, over less than 10 months. TEN PERCENT
I liquidated it a few weeks ago, to be ready for my tax bill. I will now reinvest
I said at the time I invested this money, “I just don’t see how these companies fail, they are too big to go bust, the ML boom is not over, it is probably just beginning”. Some on here told me I was mad, big bust coming etc
Nothing screams top of the market more than "can't fail" and "too big to go bust" and using capitals TEN PERCENT !
Nothing screams poor savings practice like investment horizons of 10 months and dipping in and out of the market.
Maybe we can harness AI to make myriad meme coins and a new wave of NFT's
Sounds bubble Klaxon
I believe you were one of the PB-ers advising me, with hoots of derision, not to invest in tech and the big 7 a year ago. And I made TEN PERCENT in about 9 and a half months
You are mistaken.
If you had said invest in Crypto I probably would have scoffed - and now would be tucking into humble pie.
I wouldn't have said not to invest in tech then - and I wouldn't say not to now, but with the massive caveat that it would just be part of a portfolio of shares, and I'd be happy to be a little underweight.
The MSCI World Index was up almost TWENTY PERCENT last year so forgive me in not hailing you as some kind of investment genius.
I'd say the the UK market was well under valued at the moment, particulalrly small CAPS, but would I bet on the UK market outperforming the USA market over the next 10 or 20 years ? No chance. Their economy will simply grow faster than ours and add to the fact that sterling will continue to decline against the dollar.
When my dad was young, a crown was colloquially known as a dollar, as you got $4 to the £ during the war. When my kids are as old as me, you won't set a single $ to a pound.
Comments
Merseyside Police are aware of details of injuries are being refered to on social media and the families have asked not for the specific details to be released
(One my pet theories is we get a better deal by going out then sneaking a quarter back in than by going three-quarters out.)
Now that I understand his.upbringing a bit better, with his father conditioning him to be a new Von Braun, I wouldn't trust him to post a letter.
You know what these Free Speech absolutists are like.
These are the known factors, what energy generation technology fills that gap without shitting up the climate? SMRs offer us a chance of doing it and really the cost is £5-7bn, if it works then we have a leadership position globally with manufacturing and tech for the next big energy boom. If it doesn't then all we've lost is £5-7bn that was going to be pissed away on pensions anyway.
Nothing screams poor savings practice like investment horizons of 10 months and dipping in and out of the market.
Maybe we can harness AI to make myriad meme coins and a new wave of NFT's
Sounds bubble Klaxon
EDIT:
Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
I guess blowing up ULEZ cameras isn't considered serious damage to property.
If he refuses, and chooses a lifetime of slow mental torture, fair enough, if he wants to die, great, we save loads of money and a piece of near-worthless human crap is gone
I believe you were one of the PB-ers advising me, with hoots of derision, not to invest in tech and the big 7 a year ago. And I made TEN PERCENT in about 9 and a half months
https://www.pitzlfinancial.com/blog/ode-shoeshine-boy
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c07g944ggggo
About ten months ago I came into a windfall, I discussed where to invest it on here, and we chatted
It is in the nature of my job, creative self employment, that my income varies wildly, and I have to be prepped for sudden movements, big tax bills. I have other long term investments but I didn’t want to touch them (bonds, ISAs, boring stuff)
I decided that the best way to use my money, but keep it pretty liquid, was to invest in US (and other global) tech. I made ten percent in ten months, as discussed (despite skepticism on here). I then liquidated it - as planned - for multiple reasons, including tax
Now I shall reinvest. I see this as risk capital seeking a rewarding but not trouble free home
NEW THREAD
I started reading Charlie Astor's thread on twitter but stopped once it got to a certain point. I found it distressing and really upsetting and could feel myself starting to well up and I am a 59 year old guy who is not overly emotional.
But, I find it interesting that we've gone from why Rudakubana might be in a different category to Wayne Couzens, Jack the Ripper etc., to "year, but people blowing up ULEZ cameras are also terrorists."
Can these people not see that there might be a difference between blowing up people and blowing up ULEZ cameras? Now, maybe the authorities should be using every piece of legislation they can to stop people causing damage to infrastructure like ULEZ cameras. But just because they aren't doesn't mean that murdering girls en masse isn't terrorism.
I think terrorism needs quite a substantial and considered ideological grounding. I don't think there is evidence that's the case in Southport or for the ULEZ people.
Although there were some things linked to terrorism such as Al Qaeda Manual and something to do with Ricin I agree with you. I do not think these alone are evidence and I doubt it is terrorist related. I am not sure what people who obsess over this want apart from any crime to be labelled terrorism.
We have even less idea of how that will work at scale.
If you had said invest in Crypto I probably would have scoffed - and now would be tucking into humble pie.
I wouldn't have said not to invest in tech then - and I wouldn't say not to now, but with the massive caveat that it would just be part of a portfolio of shares, and I'd be happy to be a little underweight.
The MSCI World Index was up almost TWENTY PERCENT last year so forgive me in not hailing you as some kind of investment genius.
I'd say the the UK market was well under valued at the moment, particulalrly small CAPS, but would I bet on the UK market outperforming the USA market over the next 10 or 20 years ? No chance.
Their economy will simply grow faster than ours and add to the fact that sterling will continue to decline against the dollar.
When my dad was young, a crown was colloquially known as a dollar, as you got $4 to the £ during the war.
When my kids are as old as me, you won't set a single $ to a pound.