Without any delegates from Wisconsin he will never get to 1237. So now the base scenario is that Cruz is the nominee in the chaotic convention and Trump bolts out as an independent taking his voters with him.
Basically worst case scenario for the Republican party.
If Trump wins New York and Pennsylvania and New Jersey this month he will almost certainly have the delegates to be nominee despite losing Wisconsin even if he has to wait until California in June to confirm it
I doubt it.
Trump has to start collecting signatures for his 3rd party run and fast, since he wont be the GOP nominee and he will bolt as an independent anyway it's better for him to start right away. The damage he can do to the GOP is enormous, this is one of the last polls that asked for a third party Trump run:
Knowing Trump's strength is east of the Mississippi river, there is a chance that the GOP will lose every state east of that river if Trump runs as an independent. Not to mention that Trump will probably campaign against every GOP elected official as payback.
No, if Trump wins New York and Pennsylvania and California he has the delegates to be nominee even before the Convention. Cruz and Sanders will stretch it out but the odds still favour Trump v Clinton
California may be the one that decides things. Cruz on target for a win there but only 55% chance according to 5-38 website.
Without any delegates from Wisconsin he will never get to 1237. So now the base scenario is that Cruz is the nominee in the chaotic convention and Trump bolts out as an independent taking his voters with him.
Basically worst case scenario for the Republican party.
Cut down on the speed, bro. It's in the bag for Trump. Hilary? Not so much.
Right now Trump has 752, he will get 0 from Wisconsin, N.Dakota, Colorado, Nebraska, S.Dakota, Montana, and if his under-performance continues 0 from Indiana, Oregon, Washington and N.Mexico.
Even if he wins all delegates from all the other states (a mathematical impossibility) he ends up at 1222, 15 short.
Trump will probably win Oregon and Washington and New Mexico let alone get no delegates
Without any delegates from Wisconsin he will never get to 1237. So now the base scenario is that Cruz is the nominee in the chaotic convention and Trump bolts out as an independent taking his voters with him.
Basically worst case scenario for the Republican party.
Cut down on the speed, bro. It's in the bag for Trump. Hilary? Not so much.
Right now Trump has 752, he will get 0 from Wisconsin, N.Dakota, Colorado, Nebraska, S.Dakota, Montana, and if his under-performance continues 0 from Indiana, Oregon, Washington and N.Mexico.
Even if he wins all delegates from all the other states (a mathematical impossibility) he ends up at 1222, 15 short.
Trump will probably win Oregon and Washington and New Mexico let alone get no delegates
Without any delegates from Wisconsin he will never get to 1237. So now the base scenario is that Cruz is the nominee in the chaotic convention and Trump bolts out as an independent taking his voters with him.
Basically worst case scenario for the Republican party.
Cut down on the speed, bro. It's in the bag for Trump. Hilary? Not so much.
Right now Trump has 752, he will get 0 from Wisconsin, N.Dakota, Colorado, Nebraska, S.Dakota, Montana, and if his under-performance continues 0 from Indiana, Oregon, Washington and N.Mexico.
Even if he wins all delegates from all the other states (a mathematical impossibility) he ends up at 1222, 15 short.
Trump will probably win Oregon and Washington and New Mexico let alone get no delegates
Without any delegates from Wisconsin he will never get to 1237. So now the base scenario is that Cruz is the nominee in the chaotic convention and Trump bolts out as an independent taking his voters with him.
Basically worst case scenario for the Republican party.
If Trump wins New York and Pennsylvania and New Jersey this month he will almost certainly have the delegates to be nominee despite losing Wisconsin even if he has to wait until California in June to confirm it
I doubt it.
Trump has to start collecting signatures for his 3rd party run and fast, since he wont be the GOP nominee and he will bolt as an independent anyway it's better for him to start right away. The damage he can do to the GOP is enormous, this is one of the last polls that asked for a third party Trump run:
Knowing Trump's strength is east of the Mississippi river, there is a chance that the GOP will lose every state east of that river if Trump runs as an independent. Not to mention that Trump will probably campaign against every GOP elected official as payback.
No, if Trump wins New York and Pennsylvania and California he has the delegates to be nominee even before the Convention. Cruz and Sanders will stretch it out but the odds still favour Trump v Clinton
California may be the one that decides things. Cruz on target for a win there but only 55% chance according to 5-38 website.
Cruz has no chance of winning California, SoCal and the Central Valley vote the same as Arizona, easy Trump win. Nate Silver really has no credibility. Although I notice in the Vanity Fair piece he has hedged himself and said Trump now has a 25% chance of winning the Presidency.
Without any delegates from Wisconsin he will never get to 1237. So now the base scenario is that Cruz is the nominee in the chaotic convention and Trump bolts out as an independent taking his voters with him.
Basically worst case scenario for the Republican party.
If Trump wins New York and Pennsylvania and New Jersey this month he will almost certainly have the delegates to be nominee despite losing Wisconsin even if he has to wait until California in June to confirm it
I doubt it.
Trump has to start collecting signatures for his 3rd party run and fast, since he wont be the GOP nominee and he will bolt as an independent anyway it's better for him to start right away. The damage he can do to the GOP is enormous, this is one of the last polls that asked for a third party Trump run:
Knowing Trump's strength is east of the Mississippi river, there is a chance that the GOP will lose every state east of that river if Trump runs as an independent. Not to mention that Trump will probably campaign against every GOP elected official as payback.
No, if Trump wins New York and Pennsylvania and California he has the delegates to be nominee even before the Convention. Cruz and Sanders will stretch it out but the odds still favour Trump v Clinton
California may be the one that decides things. Cruz on target for a win there but only 55% chance according to 5-38 website.
Trump actually narrowly leads in the latest California poll
Without any delegates from Wisconsin he will never get to 1237. So now the base scenario is that Cruz is the nominee in the chaotic convention and Trump bolts out as an independent taking his voters with him.
Basically worst case scenario for the Republican party.
If Trump wins New York and Pennsylvania and New Jersey this month he will almost certainly have the delegates to be nominee despite losing Wisconsin even if he has to wait until California in June to confirm it
Knowing Trump's strength is east of the Mississippi river, there is a chance that the GOP will lose every state east of that river if Trump runs as an independent. Not to mention that Trump will probably campaign against every GOP elected official as payback.
No, if Trump wins New York and Pennsylvania and California he has the delegates to be nominee even before the Convention. Cruz and Sanders will stretch it out but the odds still favour Trump v Clinton
California may be the one that decides things. Cruz on target for a win there but only 55% chance according to 5-38 website.
California? The last time I looked at the polls there Trump was miles ahead of Cruz.
Without any delegates from Wisconsin he will never get to 1237. So now the base scenario is that Cruz is the nominee in the chaotic convention and Trump bolts out as an independent taking his voters with him.
Basically worst case scenario for the Republican party.
If Trump wins New York and Pennsylvania and New Jersey this month he will almost certainly have the delegates to be nominee despite losing Wisconsin even if he has to wait until California in June to confirm it
I doubt it.
Trump has to start collecting signatures for his 3rd party run and fast, since he wont be the GOP nominee and he will bolt as an independent anyway it's better for him to start right away. The damage he can do to the GOP is enormous, this is one of the last polls that asked for a third party Trump run:
Knowing Trump's strength is east of the Mississippi river, there is a chance that the GOP will lose every state east of that river if Trump runs as an independent. Not to mention that Trump will probably campaign against every GOP elected official as payback.
No, if Trump wins New York and Pennsylvania and California he has the delegates to be nominee even before the Convention. Cruz and Sanders will stretch it out but the odds still favour Trump v Clinton
Snag is that only 17 delegates of the 71 from Pennsylvania are pledged to the victor, the rest can do whatever they like.
There are not enough delegates in N.Y and California to overcome that accumulated deficit.
If Trump wins Pennsylvania he will get most of its delegates
Using the large Optimus poll of NY Trump leads in 26 of 27 CD's.
He is polling +50% in 12 CD's; he is between 40% and 50% in 7 CD's. Anyway Trump would earn 79 delegates: 12 x 3= 36 14 X 2= 28 1 x 1 = 1 PV= 14
Total 79 If Trump could convert the 7 CD's currently below 50% to above 50% he would add another 7 D to arrive at 86D.
Not enough, that's why it is crucial for him to win delegates in Wisconsin.
Wisconsin is winner-take-all by district. Even if Trump doesn’t win, he’ll win the rural northern and western districts and the city of Milwaukee. At least 12 delegates, not zero.
Using the large Optimus poll of NY Trump leads in 26 of 27 CD's.
He is polling +50% in 12 CD's; he is between 40% and 50% in 7 CD's. Anyway Trump would earn 79 delegates: 12 x 3= 36 14 X 2= 28 1 x 1 = 1 PV= 14
Total 79 If Trump could convert the 7 CD's currently below 50% to above 50% he would add another 7 D to arrive at 86D.
Not enough, that's why it is crucial for him to win delegates in Wisconsin.
Wisconsin is winner-take-all by district. Even if Trump doesn’t win, he’ll win the rural northern and western districts and the city of Milwaukee. At least 12 delegates, not zero.
Exactly so he gets a few delegates from Wisconsin helping him over the line overall
Without any delegates from Wisconsin he will never get to 1237. So now the base scenario is that Cruz is the nominee in the chaotic convention and Trump bolts out as an independent taking his voters with him.
Basically worst case scenario for the Republican party.
If Trump wins New York and Pennsylvania and New Jersey this month he will almost certainly have the delegates to be nominee despite losing Wisconsin even if he has to wait until California in June to confirm it
I doubt it.
Trump has to start collecting signatures for his 3rd party run and fast, since he wont be the GOP nominee and he will bolt as an independent anyway it's better for him to start right away. The damage he can do to the GOP is enormous, this is one of the last polls that asked for a third party Trump run:
Knowing Trump's strength is east of the Mississippi river, there is a chance that the GOP will lose every state east of that river if Trump runs as an independent. Not to mention that Trump will probably campaign against every GOP elected official as payback.
No, if Trump wins New York and Pennsylvania and California he has the delegates to be nominee even before the Convention. Cruz and Sanders will stretch it out but the odds still favour Trump v Clinton
Snag is that only 17 delegates of the 71 from Pennsylvania are pledged to the victor, the rest can do whatever they like.
There are not enough delegates in N.Y and California to overcome that accumulated deficit.
If Trump wins Pennsylvania he will get most of its delegates
First he does a volte face on EU and gets riduculed Then he gets caught out with interesting bonus arrangements while a banker And now he presides over the butchery of the steel industry while representing a consitituency with lots of people dependent on manufacturing.
SJWNBPM
There is likely to be a government rescue of some form
A rescue plan for Sajid Javid? Is that the same as the multiple re-launches of Gordon Brown when PM?
Changing climate has not pushed up the cost of energy by a single penny. HMG's reaction to the reports of climate change has. The destruction of energy intensive industries such as steel is an inevitable consequence of government policy and has been widely predicted for a long time.
For Cameron now to cut short his holiday and rush back for crisis talks is just pure humbug. By continuing with the ludicrous Climate Change Act Cameron has decided to sacrifice the livelihood of tens of thousands of workers just so he and his ilk can feel good about themselves and prance about on the "World Stage" pretending they are leading the world.
Using the large Optimus poll of NY Trump leads in 26 of 27 CD's.
He is polling +50% in 12 CD's; he is between 40% and 50% in 7 CD's. Anyway Trump would earn 79 delegates: 12 x 3= 36 14 X 2= 28 1 x 1 = 1 PV= 14
Total 79 If Trump could convert the 7 CD's currently below 50% to above 50% he would add another 7 D to arrive at 86D.
Not enough, that's why it is crucial for him to win delegates in Wisconsin.
Wisconsin is winner-take-all by district. Even if Trump doesn’t win, he’ll win the rural northern and western districts and the city of Milwaukee. At least 12 delegates, not zero.
With a Cruz lead of 10 points I doubt it.
In order for Trump to cover his loses he needs to win at least 6 out of the 8 districts if he loses the state, if Cruz leads by 10 then he might win only 1 out of 8.
Anyway I may be reading the tea leaves of math but the signs point that Trump won't get to 1237, the NeverTrumps will never give up, the GOP will blow up in the convention, Trump will run as an independent in most states and actively campaign against elected republicans up and down america, resulting in massive loses for the GOP in Congress.
Winner:Democrats, the only sure bet, as I've been saying for weeks now.
Using the large Optimus poll of NY Trump leads in 26 of 27 CD's.
He is polling +50% in 12 CD's; he is between 40% and 50% in 7 CD's. Anyway Trump would earn 79 delegates: 12 x 3= 36 14 X 2= 28 1 x 1 = 1 PV= 14
Total 79 If Trump could convert the 7 CD's currently below 50% to above 50% he would add another 7 D to arrive at 86D.
Not enough, that's why it is crucial for him to win delegates in Wisconsin.
Wisconsin is winner-take-all by district. Even if Trump doesn’t win, he’ll win the rural northern and western districts and the city of Milwaukee. At least 12 delegates, not zero.
With a Cruz lead of 10 points I doubt it.
In order for Trump to cover his loses he needs to win at least 6 out of the 8 districts if he loses the state, if Cruz leads by 10 then he might win only 1 out of 8.
Anyway I may be reading the tea leaves of math but the signs point that Trump won't get to 1237, the NeverTrumps will never give up, the GOP will blow up in the convention, Trump will run as an independent in most states and actively campaign against elected republicans up and down america, resulting in massive loses for the GOP in Congress.
Winner:Democrats, the only sure bet, as I've been saying for weeks now.
Of course the special interest will never give up, if he becomes nominee they will try to stop him being President, HRC is absolutely perfect for them. The question is whether the rest of the GOP let the special interests blow up the party, denying Trump the nomination would be fatal. Already murmurings of discontent from many in the establishment.
Not possible to run as an independent, too late for almost all places.
Check out the Atlanta FED GDPNow forecast. The US is already in a slowdown, this will feed through to the general public in the next few months, forward looking indicators look bad too.
Late I know, but having just listened to that Thornberry interview re Falklands, it was pretty hilarious. I've rarely heard, as at the start of it, such a clear example of a politician clearly aware of the trap that is coming and through very short answers and clipped tones, doing their best not to fall into it, while knowing it is unavoidable.
First he does a volte face on EU and gets riduculed Then he gets caught out with interesting bonus arrangements while a banker And now he presides over the butchery of the steel industry while representing a consitituency with lots of people dependent on manufacturing.
SJWNBPM
Not sure about the manufacturing point. Bromsgrove? Pretty rural and edge of urban areas. Commuter belt for Brum these days I'd say.
Nah, stuffed full of people who commute to Redditch and Birmingham or who work in service sectors dependent on manufacturing.
We may be over-interpreting one poll - it's got a 4% swing from Trump to Cruz since the Optimus poll of a few days earlier, but the latest poll has a sample of 472 and the previous one sampled a massive 6182 (who pays for Optimus to do these monsters?). That said, I do get the feeling that the stop-Trump movement is finally into top gear.
Let's suppose that the convention comes round and Trump gets 1180 to say 900 for Cruz, 300 for Kasich and 100 or so miscellaneous and unpledged. If you're a loyal unpledged GOP foot-soldier, what do you do? Vote Trump, who may lead the party to disaster? Or vote Cruz, and split the party down the middle? I don't know what ordinary GOPers would be likely to do in that situation. normally, I'd think that being very close to a majority would be enough - just make a couple of deals to put you over. But this year? Hmm.
Changing climate has not pushed up the cost of energy by a single penny. HMG's reaction to the reports of climate change has. The destruction of energy intensive industries such as steel is an inevitable consequence of government policy and has been widely predicted for a long time.
For Cameron now to cut short his holiday and rush back for crisis talks is just pure humbug. By continuing with the ludicrous Climate Change Act Cameron has decided to sacrifice the livelihood of tens of thousands of workers just so he and his ilk can feel good about themselves and prance about on the "World Stage" pretending they are leading the world.
And all of it totally flawed.
Closing down relatively energy efficient industries in the UK so that more coal fired power stations can open in China is counterproductive.
The tale of RBS is one of grotesque hubris. The was an equal parts fascinating and enraging BBC documentary on Goodwin's folly - used lots of footage from investor-board meetings.
Jaw dropping stuff, including the admission they did no due diligence on either the Natwest or ABN Ambro purchases
A respectable consevative prudent retail banking outfit was taken over by management who were avaristic bufoons who seemingly knew nothing about the very money markets they were tapping up for cash to fund their hubristic delusion.
There is a story still to be told about the events which led to ABN Amro being put in play, the questionable - possibly criminal - activities that went on and what the authorities were warned about at the time. The authorities were given an opportunity to take action to stop the disaster but being too feeble to take the skin off a rice pudding they did nothing.
Changing climate has not pushed up the cost of energy by a single penny. HMG's reaction to the reports of climate change has. The destruction of energy intensive industries such as steel is an inevitable consequence of government policy and has been widely predicted for a long time.
For Cameron now to cut short his holiday and rush back for crisis talks is just pure humbug. By continuing with the ludicrous Climate Change Act Cameron has decided to sacrifice the livelihood of tens of thousands of workers just so he and his ilk can feel good about themselves and prance about on the "World Stage" pretending they are leading the world.
And all of it totally flawed.
Closing down relatively energy efficient industries in the UK so that more coal fired power stations can open in China is counterproductive.
But Greenie virtue signallers get to hug a Husky and feel all warm, and good about themselves.
Polar bears count for more than the livelihoods of thousands of human workers and their dependents in the eyes of many politicians. It's shameful.
The Tories won't go near any hint of nationalisation and Labour has its own problems.
China is dumping steel and the EU will prevent major tariffs, but Labour can't go big on that because they like the EU. Energy costs are too high but Labour can't go big on that because Wallace put them on to be Green. So nationalisation, it is.
The BBC are tip-toeing round the tariff issue because of their own sensitivity.
Wouldn't it be nice if people were honest?
It's a bit more complicated that that.
For a long while, China was in a big construction boom - a little like Spain's during early 2000s. It reached a point where China was sucking up more than half of the world's steel and concrete.
A booming China meant rising steel prices and, the free market being the free market, it led to new steel production being built worldwide. Sure, a lot of it was in China, but new steel plant was built worldwide.
Chinese steel demand peaked in 2013. It could well fall 50% from peak. And this at a time when steel capacity was being build on the assumption that China would continue to consume ever increasing quantities of steel.
Simplifying greatly, steel plants (and other plants) have two types of costs: the capital cost committed at the start of the project, and the ongoing cost of operating the plant. The first cost is captured on the P&L statement through 'depreciation' - a non-cash charge which reflects the fact that machines and buildings and the like do not last forever. Firms will often run at capacity even when they are making a loss, because a large chunk of their costs are depreciation. If you are hugely in debt, so long as you are short-term cashflow positive (i.e. covering the cost of operating the plant, even if not covering your initial capital costs), you will produce.
This is largely what's going on in China. Look at Hebei Iron and Steel - a quoted Chinese steel maker. It's operating cash flow positive... just. But it needs to run its plants at capacity (or to shutter them) to remain that way.
There is too much steel capacity globally. Massively too much. Perhaps a quarter of the world's steel plants will close in the next three to five years. This isn't 'Chinese dumping' as part of some war. This is the inevitable consequence of an industry where capacity grew massively faster than (the new level of) demand.
Right now, ArcellorMittal, Tata Steel and others are going round the world trying to gather up subsidies. These subsidies just maintain excess capacity. We should offer massive amounts of support to the people of Port Talbot. But we cannot get into the business of propping up 90th percentile plants in a massively over-supplied industries.
Of course if anyone is wondering why Cruz has not seen a hit on his numbers from that sex scandal it's because Ted Cruz is ugly, no one can really believe that someone that ugly can have 5 mistresses unless presented with video evidence.
Cruz looks like a short fat vampire, why would anyone think that the ladies will like him, his personality ? He is also not fabulously wealthy that he can attract them with piles of money.
The Tories won't go near any hint of nationalisation and Labour has its own problems.
China is dumping steel and the EU will prevent major tariffs, but Labour can't go big on that because they like the EU. Energy costs are too high but Labour can't go big on that because Wallace put them on to be Green. So nationalisation, it is.
The BBC are tip-toeing round the tariff issue because of their own sensitivity.
Wouldn't it be nice if people were honest?
It's a bit more complicated that that.
For a long while, China was in a big construction boom - a little like Spain's during early 2000s. It reached a point where China was sucking up more than half of the world's steel and concrete.
A booming China meant rising steel prices and, the free market being the free market, it led to new steel production being built worldwide. Sure, a lot of it was in China, but new steel plant was built worldwide.
Chinese steel demand peaked in 2013. It could well fall 50% from peak. And this at a time when steel capacity was being build on the assumption that China would continue to consume ever increasing quantities of steel.
Simplifying greatly, steel plants (and other plants) have two types of costs: the capital cost committed at the start of the project, and the ongoing cost of operating the plant. The first cost is captured on the P&L statement through 'depreciation' - a non-cash charge which reflects the fact that machines and buildings and the like do not last forever. Firms will often run at capacity even when they are making a loss, because a large chunk of their costs are depreciation. If you are hugely in debt, so long as you are short-term cashflow positive (i.e. covering the cost of operating the plant, even if not covering your initial capital costs), you will produce.
This is largely what's going on in China. Look at Hebei Iron and Steel - a quoted Chinese steel maker. It's operating cash flow positive... just. But it needs to run its plants at capacity (or to shutter them) to remain that way.
There is too much steel capacity globally. Massively too much. Perhaps a quarter of the world's steel plants will close in the next three to five years. This isn't 'Chinese dumping' as part of some war. This is the inevitable consequence of an industry where capacity grew massively faster than (the new level of) demand.
Right now, ArcellorMittal, Tata Steel and others are going round the world trying to gather up subsidies. These subsidies just maintain excess capacity. We should offer massive amounts of support to the people of Port Talbot. But we cannot get into the business of propping up 90th percentile plants in a massively over-supplied industries.
Wouldn't it be cheaper to subsidise Chinese closures ?
If the government rescue this factory I will be very disappointed. It is not the job of the government to be subsidising failing businesses or unworkable business models. It's the same reason we should get rid of the green subsidies and why Hinkley shouldn't go ahead and why both Heathrow and Gatwick should be allowed an extra runway each.
The tale of RBS is one of grotesque hubris. The was an equal parts fascinating and enraging BBC documentary on Goodwin's folly - used lots of footage from investor-board meetings.
Jaw dropping stuff, including the admission they did no due diligence on either the Natwest or ABN Ambro purchases
A respectable consevative prudent retail banking outfit was taken over by management who were avaristic bufoons who seemingly knew nothing about the very money markets they were tapping up for cash to fund their hubristic delusion.
There is a story still to be told about the events which led to ABN Amro being put in play, the questionable - possibly criminal - activities that went on and what the authorities were warned about at the time. The authorities were given an opportunity to take action to stop the disaster but being too feeble to take the skin off a rice pudding they did nothing.
One day the full story will be told.
The ABN Amro purchase looks. . . weird, purchase an investment banking business that turns out has very little investment bankers included in the sale or investment bank assets. And then ABN use the money from the sale to setup a new investment banking unit with all of their invesemt bankers it.
Changing climate has not pushed up the cost of energy by a single penny. HMG's reaction to the reports of climate change has. The destruction of energy intensive industries such as steel is an inevitable consequence of government policy and has been widely predicted for a long time.
For Cameron now to cut short his holiday and rush back for crisis talks is just pure humbug. By continuing with the ludicrous Climate Change Act Cameron has decided to sacrifice the livelihood of tens of thousands of workers just so he and his ilk can feel good about themselves and prance about on the "World Stage" pretending they are leading the world.
Wouldn't it be cheaper to subsidise Chinese closures ?
Yes that is really where a lot of the capacity reduction should be going on. But the Chinese are unwilling to bite that particular bullet given the social consequences and potential for unrest. They will be happy to keep masses of inefficient plant going for years and years and push the maximum amount of capacity reduction on to others.
If the government rescue this factory I will be very disappointed. It is not the job of the government to be subsidising failing businesses or unworkable business models. It's the same reason we should get rid of the green subsidies and why Hinkley shouldn't go ahead and why both Heathrow and Gatwick should be allowed an extra runway each.
Sadly, Port Talbot is in the 90th cost percentile for steel plants worldwide. That means that 90% of plants produce steel more cheaply. This is nothing to do with labour regulations, or green stuff: it is a consequence of this being a really old plant compared to newer ones with much lower operating costs.
The Tories won't go near any hint of nationalisation and Labour has its own problems.
China is dumping steel and the EU will prevent major tariffs, but Labour can't go big on that because they like the EU. Energy costs are too high but Labour can't go big on that because Wallace put them on to be Green. So nationalisation, it is.
The BBC are tip-toeing round the tariff issue because of their own sensitivity.
Wouldn't it be nice if people were honest?
It's a bit more complicated that that.
For a long while, China was in a big construction boom - a little like Spain's during early 2000s. It reached a point where China was sucking up more than half of the world's steel and concrete.
A booming China meant rising steel prices and, the free market being the free market, it led to new steel production being built worldwide. Sure, a lot of it was in China, but new steel plant was built worldwide.
Chinese steel demand peaked in 2013. It could well fall 50% from peak. And this at a time when steel capacity was being build on the assumption that China would continue to consume ever increasing quantities of steel.
This is largely what's going on in China. Look at Hebei Iron and Steel - a quoted Chinese steel maker. It's operating cash flow positive... just. But it needs to run its plants at capacity (or to shutter them) to remain that way.
There is too much steel capacity globally. Massively too much. Perhaps a quarter of the world's steel plants will close in the next three to five years. This isn't 'Chinese dumping' as part of some war. This is the inevitable consequence of an industry where capacity grew massively faster than (the new level of) demand.
Right now, ArcellorMittal, Tata Steel and others are going round the world trying to gather up subsidies. These subsidies just maintain excess capacity. We should offer massive amounts of support to the people of Port Talbot. But we cannot get into the business of propping up 90th percentile plants in a massively over-supplied industries.
Wouldn't it be cheaper to subsidise Chinese closures ?
Much business in China is either controlled by the State or condoned, via connections, by the State. If Britain loses its steel industry it will never come back and we will slide ever more into an economy of shop keeping and house selling.
If the government rescue this factory I will be very disappointed. It is not the job of the government to be subsidising failing businesses or unworkable business models. It's the same reason we should get rid of the green subsidies and why Hinkley shouldn't go ahead and why both Heathrow and Gatwick should be allowed an extra runway each.
I wonder what the absolute minimum steel production rate is in a world where there is no new construction going on.
I guess scrap metal recycling is the absolute minimum for durable goods.
'This isn't 'Chinese dumping' as part of some war.'
Well yes and no - there is no question that dumping is going on.
Moreover, there is also no question that a large part of the capacity cuts necessary in steel should happen in China.
But equally, the Chinese will be keen as you like to minimise that share and maximise the share borne by everyone else. In particular, because of the social consequences and potential for unrest that massive cutbacks in China would risk.
They can get away with this by massive implicit subsidies through the banking system.
If the government rescue this factory I will be very disappointed. It is not the job of the government to be subsidising failing businesses or unworkable business models. It's the same reason we should get rid of the green subsidies and why Hinkley shouldn't go ahead and why both Heathrow and Gatwick should be allowed an extra runway each.
Sadly, Port Talbot is in the 90th cost percentile for steel plants worldwide. That means that 90% of plants produce steel more cheaply. This is nothing to do with labour regulations, or green stuff: it is a consequence of this being a really old plant compared to newer ones with much lower operating costs.
Is it anything to do with pay compared to the developing world? I guess so.
If Javid's line is nothing can be done, then he should resign as he obviously has no job.
Maybe his job is about encouraging more productive industries that aren't flooding the market at rock-bottom prices.
Earlier today we were discussing whether a risk to a potential 2% change in GDP is a "price worth paying". I believe from memory the steel industry as a whole is currently worth 0.1% of GDP.
Since 2008 RBS has lost on average £19.5 million per day. Why's it still there ?
Because it has more potential and is more strategically important with more critical failures down the chain if it failed than a single commodity supplier. Though if the government decided to asset strip and close RBS I'd be perfectly OK with that too. I see no reason why RBS shouldn't be allowed to fail so you're possibly going down the wrong path with that for me.
We have one steel manufacturer and umpteen banks. Hows RBS strategic ?
In the short term every big bank is critical. How many businesses depend upon RBS to supply their financing? How many consumers have their finances with the bank? What happens to all those people and businesses if their bank vanishes overnight?
In contrast if a commodity supplier goes bust then there are plenty of other suppliers to smoothly take up the slack without a fraction of as much disruption.
As I said though that's a short-term issue. I'd have no qualms with the bank being shut down but its operations need to be transferred first.
If the government rescue this factory I will be very disappointed. It is not the job of the government to be subsidising failing businesses or unworkable business models. It's the same reason we should get rid of the green subsidies and why Hinkley shouldn't go ahead and why both Heathrow and Gatwick should be allowed an extra runway each.
Sadly, Port Talbot is in the 90th cost percentile for steel plants worldwide. That means that 90% of plants produce steel more cheaply. This is nothing to do with labour regulations, or green stuff: it is a consequence of this being a really old plant compared to newer ones with much lower operating costs.
Is it anything to do with pay compared to the developing world? I guess so.
It's a bit of both old plant requires more people, automate and much of the people problem goes but so do the direct jobs.
If the government rescue this factory I will be very disappointed. It is not the job of the government to be subsidising failing businesses or unworkable business models. It's the same reason we should get rid of the green subsidies and why Hinkley shouldn't go ahead and why both Heathrow and Gatwick should be allowed an extra runway each.
Sadly, Port Talbot is in the 90th cost percentile for steel plants worldwide. That means that 90% of plants produce steel more cheaply. This is nothing to do with labour regulations, or green stuff: it is a consequence of this being a really old plant compared to newer ones with much lower operating costs.
Is it anything to do with pay compared to the developing world? I guess so.
It's a bit of both old plant requires more people, automate and much of the people problem goes but so do the direct jobs.
In the developing world it is often cheaper to use people than automation, I have been amazed by the number of jobs you would automatically assume would be done by or with a machine but get done by an army of semi-skilled or skilled workers with hand tools.
If the government rescue this factory I will be very disappointed. It is not the job of the government to be subsidising failing businesses or unworkable business models. It's the same reason we should get rid of the green subsidies and why Hinkley shouldn't go ahead and why both Heathrow and Gatwick should be allowed an extra runway each.
Sadly, Port Talbot is in the 90th cost percentile for steel plants worldwide. That means that 90% of plants produce steel more cheaply. This is nothing to do with labour regulations, or green stuff: it is a consequence of this being a really old plant compared to newer ones with much lower operating costs.
Is it anything to do with pay compared to the developing world? I guess so.
Apparently the plant in North Wales is profitable.
If Javid's line is nothing can be done, then he should resign as he obviously has no job.
Maybe his job is about encouraging more productive industries that aren't flooding the market at rock-bottom prices.
Earlier today we were discussing whether a risk to a potential 2% change in GDP is a "price worth paying". I believe from memory the steel industry as a whole is currently worth 0.1% of GDP.
Since 2008 RBS has lost on average £19.5 million per day. Why's it still there ?
Because it has more potential and is more strategically important with more critical failures down the chain if it failed than a single commodity supplier. Though if the government decided to asset strip and close RBS I'd be perfectly OK with that too. I see no reason why RBS shouldn't be allowed to fail so you're possibly going down the wrong path with that for me.
We have one steel manufacturer and umpteen banks. Hows RBS strategic ?
In the short term every big bank is critical. How many businesses depend upon RBS to supply their financing? How many consumers have their finances with the bank? What happens to all those people and businesses if their bank vanishes overnight?
In contrast if a commodity supplier goes bust then there are plenty of other suppliers to smoothly take up the slack without a fraction of as much disruption.
As I said though that's a short-term issue. I'd have no qualms with the bank being shut down but its operations need to be transferred first.
The bank is bust. Even Osborne accepts that he should have broken it up and created more competition by relaunching several new banks from a restructured entity.
As for megabanks we already have 3 others. A fourth looks superfluous not strategic.
"Another feature identified in the report is that those who respond to phone polls are more likely to give socially liberal responses than those online."
What does it tell us about the character of people who are so ashamed of their right wing views that they won't even confide in an anonymous telephone pollster?
It doesn't tell us any such thing, rather, it tells us that there is a pervasive intolerance coming from the leftish/politically correct segment - an intolerance which pervades the main daily news channels and repeats almost hourly that, for example, people should be ashamed of not wanting to let another 5,000 per day "refugees" into Europe/Britain ....
Or not wearing a wristband, or giving to charidee, or going on a march, or signing a petition. I'm not sure who invented the term virtue signalling but it is brilliant, we should have a tv show, contestants demonstrate how worthy they are, just how much they care.
Well I reckon we have quite a few TV and Radio shows which are competitive virtue signalling: most of Question Time, Any Questions, several Radio4 Docs, Women's Hour, most BBC Press Reviews, etc.etc.
If the government rescue this factory I will be very disappointed. It is not the job of the government to be subsidising failing businesses or unworkable business models. It's the same reason we should get rid of the green subsidies and why Hinkley shouldn't go ahead and why both Heathrow and Gatwick should be allowed an extra runway each.
Sadly, Port Talbot is in the 90th cost percentile for steel plants worldwide. That means that 90% of plants produce steel more cheaply. This is nothing to do with labour regulations, or green stuff: it is a consequence of this being a really old plant compared to newer ones with much lower operating costs.
Is it anything to do with pay compared to the developing world? I guess so.
That is certainly a factor.
But labour is a relatively small part of steel production costs. And it is also a simplification to think of all steel being alike.
The biggest components are: the cost of iron ore (being near a mine makes a hug difference), the cost of energy (being near stranded gas assets is good), and the efficiency of the plant (the amount of energy needed to turn iron ore into steel). Furthermore, there are high quality steels (which command a premium price) and lower quality steels.
Port Talbot produces commodity, low-end steel. It produces it in a factory which is - in parts - more than 70 years old. It has no cheap local gas feedstock. And it needs to pay to transport iron ore from mines around the world.
There are steel plants around the world (and around Europe) that used the years of the Chinese boom to modernise and to move to higher grade steels. Port Talbot did not. It's management - Tata Steel of India - chose to treat it as a cash cow. The consequence is that - in the current steel price environment - it is not economic to operate. If China was cut off from the world - and didn't export or import steel - it would probably not be economic. It's in the wrong place, it pays too much for energy, and it's an old and inefficient plant.
The Tories won't go near any hint of nationalisation and Labour has its own problems.
Wouldn't it be nice if people were honest?
It's a bit more complicated that that.
For a long while, China was in a big construction boom - a little like Spain's during early 2000s. It reached a point where China was sucking up more than half of the world's steel and concrete.
A booming China meant rising steel prices and, the free market being the free market, it led to new steel production being built worldwide. Sure, a lot of it was in China, but new steel plant was built worldwide.
Chinese steel demand peaked in 2013. It could well fall 50% from peak. And this at a time when steel capacity was being build on the assumption that China would continue to consume ever increasing quantities of steel.
This is largely what's going on in China. Look at Hebei Iron and Steel - a quoted Chinese steel maker. It's operating cash flow positive... just. But it needs to run its plants at capacity (or to shutter them) to remain that way.
There is too much steel capacity globally. Massively too much. Perhaps a quarter of the world's steel plants will close in the next three to five years. This isn't 'Chinese dumping' as part of some war. This is the inevitable consequence of an industry where capacity grew massively faster than (the new level of) demand.
Right now, ArcellorMittal, Tata Steel and others are going round the world trying to gather up subsidies. These subsidies just maintain excess capacity. We should offer massive amounts of support to the people of Port Talbot. But we cannot get into the business of propping up 90th percentile plants in a massively over-supplied industries.
Wouldn't it be cheaper to subsidise Chinese closures ?
Much business in China is either controlled by the State or condoned, via connections, by the State. If Britain loses its steel industry it will never come back and we will slide ever more into an economy of shop keeping and house selling.
At some point the current account deficit will be so large that it will drag the economy and sterling down with it in a classical balance of payments crisis. (Much like the 2008 crisis in the USA which was a form of a balance of payments crisis, or the one in Brazil now)
The stagnation in world trade has probably delayed the inevitable crisis, but imports need to actually decline, you can't cover 5% of GDP per year forever.
That's were Brexit comes as a potential saviour of the economy in the long term, assuming that with Brexit the trade deficit with the EU will decline to normal levels, a balance of payments crisis can be avoided.
Of course if anyone is wondering why Cruz has not seen a hit on his numbers from that sex scandal it's because Ted Cruz is ugly, no one can really believe that someone that ugly can have 5 mistresses unless presented with video evidence.
Cruz looks like a short fat vampire, why would anyone think that the ladies will like him, his personality ? He is also not fabulously wealthy that he can attract them with piles of money.
I've read about black people accusing white people with frizzy hair of being racist, despite the fact that a lot of white people have naturally frizzy hair. For example, Rachel Dolezal.
If the government rescue this factory I will be very disappointed. It is not the job of the government to be subsidising failing businesses or unworkable business models. It's the same reason we should get rid of the green subsidies and why Hinkley shouldn't go ahead and why both Heathrow and Gatwick should be allowed an extra runway each.
Sadly, Port Talbot is in the 90th cost percentile for steel plants worldwide. That means that 90% of plants produce steel more cheaply. This is nothing to do with labour regulations, or green stuff: it is a consequence of this being a really old plant compared to newer ones with much lower operating costs.
Is it anything to do with pay compared to the developing world? I guess so.
That is certainly a factor.
But labour is a relatively small part of steel production costs. And it is also a simplification to think of all steel being alike.
The biggest components are: the cost of iron ore (being near a mine makes a hug difference), the cost of energy (being near stranded gas assets is good), and the efficiency of the plant (the amount of energy needed to turn iron ore into steel). Furthermore, there are high quality steels (which command a premium price) and lower quality steels.
Port Talbot produces commodity, low-end steel. It produces it in a factory which is - in parts - more than 70 years old. It has no cheap local gas feedstock. And it needs to pay to transport iron ore from mines around the world.
There are steel plants around the world (and around Europe) that used the years of the Chinese boom to modernise and to move to higher grade steels. Port Talbot did not. It's management - Tata Steel of India - chose to treat it as a cash cow. The consequence is that - in the current steel price environment - it is not economic to operate. If China was cut off from the world - and didn't export or import steel - it would probably not be economic. It's in the wrong place, it pays too much for energy, and it's an old and inefficient plant.
Errr doesn't much of Chinas ore come from Australia ? Plant yes spot on and they haven't made the move to higher grade steels.
Of course if anyone is wondering why Cruz has not seen a hit on his numbers from that sex scandal it's because Ted Cruz is ugly, no one can really believe that someone that ugly can have 5 mistresses unless presented with video evidence.
Cruz looks like a short fat vampire, why would anyone think that the ladies will like him, his personality ? He is also not fabulously wealthy that he can attract them with piles of money.
Political power has an allure.
Until there is video evidence or a mistress comes forward people will never believe it. That's why that scandal never took off.
With Rubio some people may have believed it, because he is handsome, but Cruz is not. It crosses the frontiers of the plausible.
Of course if anyone is wondering why Cruz has not seen a hit on his numbers from that sex scandal it's because Ted Cruz is ugly, no one can really believe that someone that ugly can have 5 mistresses unless presented with video evidence.
Cruz looks like a short fat vampire, why would anyone think that the ladies will like him, his personality ? He is also not fabulously wealthy that he can attract them with piles of money.
Of course if anyone is wondering why Cruz has not seen a hit on his numbers from that sex scandal it's because Ted Cruz is ugly, no one can really believe that someone that ugly can have 5 mistresses unless presented with video evidence.
Cruz looks like a short fat vampire, why would anyone think that the ladies will like him, his personality ? He is also not fabulously wealthy that he can attract them with piles of money.
So you think physical attractiveness is the only thing that matters in life? A lot of people would disagree with you. Many of the world's most powerful leaders have been as ugly as sin.
Of course if anyone is wondering why Cruz has not seen a hit on his numbers from that sex scandal it's because Ted Cruz is ugly, no one can really believe that someone that ugly can have 5 mistresses unless presented with video evidence.
Cruz looks like a short fat vampire, why would anyone think that the ladies will like him, his personality ? He is also not fabulously wealthy that he can attract them with piles of money.
Political power has an allure.
Absolubtely disgusting as Trump would say.
Ted Cruz having a sexual relationship with Glenn Beck that I can believe, but Cruz having 5 mistresses I cannot :
If the government rescue this factory I will be very disappointed. It is not the job of the government to be subsidising failing businesses or unworkable business models. It's the same reason we should get rid of the green subsidies and why Hinkley shouldn't go ahead and why both Heathrow and Gatwick should be allowed an extra runway each.
Sadly, Port Talbot is in the 90th cost percentile for steel plants worldwide. That means that 90% of plants produce steel more cheaply. This is nothing to do with labour regulations, or green stuff: it is a consequence of this being a really old plant compared to newer ones with much lower operating costs.
Is it anything to do with pay compared to the developing world? I guess so.
That is certainly a factor.
But labour is a relatively small part of steel production costs. And it is also a simplification to think of all steel being alike.
The biggest components are: the cost of iron ore (being near a mine makes a hug difference), the cost of energy (being near stranded gas assets is good), and the efficiency of the plant (the amount of energy needed to turn iron ore into steel). Furthermore, there are high quality steels (which command a premium price) and lower quality steels.
Port Talbot produces commodity, low-end steel. It produces it in a factory which is - in parts - more than 70 years old. It has no cheap local gas feedstock. And it needs to pay to transport iron ore from mines around the world.
There are steel plants around the world (and around Europe) that used the years of the Chinese boom to modernise and to move to higher grade steels. Port Talbot did not. It's management - Tata Steel of India - chose to treat it as a cash cow. The consequence is that - in the current steel price environment - it is not economic to operate. If China was cut off from the world - and didn't export or import steel - it would probably not be economic. It's in the wrong place, it pays too much for energy, and it's an old and inefficient plant.
Errr doesn't much of Chinas ore come from Australia ? Plant yes spot on and they haven't made the move to higher grade steels.
China produces around half the world's iron ore, with Australia being another 20% and Brazil 10%.
Those who say we need a steel industry for "strategic" reasons need to remember that we'd still be utterly dependent on imported iron ore.
American academe is diseased (so is the UK but its less advanced). In the end this crap might kill universities in the great centres of western intellectual endeavour. Sad.
Can you imagine this willpower-sapping-shit being tolerated in Hong Kong, Singapore or indeed mainland China?
Our USP as western liberal democracies is - or was - the free exchange and interplay of ideas, cultures, influences, ideologies, opinions. We casually burn it down.
I think we're less affected in the UK because we pick our degree subjects right at the beginning. Tuition fees and the withdrawal of government funding for humanities teaching means that more students are opting for 'useful' subjects where this kind of thing has no purchase.
In the USA, everyone takes a broader set of courses, so all students are more likely to take some bull**** ideological classes which promote this kind of thinking.
If the government rescue this factory I will be very disappointed. It is not the job of the government to be subsidising failing businesses or unworkable business models. It's the same reason we should get rid of the green subsidies and why Hinkley shouldn't go ahead and why both Heathrow and Gatwick should be allowed an extra runway each.
I wonder what the absolute minimum steel production rate is in a world where there is no new construction going on.
I guess scrap metal recycling is the absolute minimum for durable goods.
Sanjeev Gupta of Liberty House was on C4 news last night. His company is buying up the old steel works and puttig them back in business. The difference is he is reusing recycled steel. He said that steel production in the UK at around 10 million tons a year was pretty much matched by the amount of steel being recycled. His whole business model is based on that cycle.
American academe is diseased (so is the UK but its less advanced). In the end this crap might kill universities in the great centres of western intellectual endeavour. Sad.
Can you imagine this willpower-sapping-shit being tolerated in Hong Kong, Singapore or indeed mainland China?
Our USP as western liberal democracies is - or was - the free exchange and interplay of ideas, cultures, influences, ideologies, opinions. We casually burn it down.
Mind you, it was a treat to see the white Rasta get his comeuppance.
Of course if anyone is wondering why Cruz has not seen a hit on his numbers from that sex scandal it's because Ted Cruz is ugly, no one can really believe that someone that ugly can have 5 mistresses unless presented with video evidence.
Cruz looks like a short fat vampire, why would anyone think that the ladies will like him, his personality ? He is also not fabulously wealthy that he can attract them with piles of money.
So you think physical attractiveness is the only thing that matters in life? A lot of people would disagree with you. Many of the world's most powerful leaders have been as ugly as sin.
No, but in a case of a sex scandal or any scandal or crime we are talking about the limits of the plausible when absolutely conclusive evidence is not provided.
If the government rescue this factory I will be very disappointed. It is not the job of the government to be subsidising failing businesses or unworkable business models. It's the same reason we should get rid of the green subsidies and why Hinkley shouldn't go ahead and why both Heathrow and Gatwick should be allowed an extra runway each.
Sadly, Port Talbot is in the 90th cost percentile for steel plants worldwide. That means that 90% of plants produce steel more cheaply. This is nothing to do with labour regulations, or green stuff: it is a consequence of this being a really old plant compared to newer ones with much lower operating costs.
My guess is that the investment required to bring fixed costs down will be too high to yield a decent RoI and that Tata would get a better RoI building a new factory somewhere else which has lower energy and unit labour costs. The opportunity cost of keeping Port Talbot open with hundreds of millions of investment for what might only yield 1-2% would be very high.
As always an investment like that would have to be done with an eye on the future and with the way energy and labour costs are rising there is no guarantee that a currently profitable investment won't become loss-making in 10-12 years. If the government moved to eliminate subsidies for green energy and struck a bargain with the union to have a wage freeze for at least 5 years so that the unit labour cost to production cost ratio starts to make more sense then I could see Tata willing to invest and stay in Port Talbot. The government needs to look at supply side reforms rather than a state bailout.
This is how I see it, if there was a chance that the company could make a profit out of this factory then they would do it, the Tata management have proven long-term thinking and long term investment planning. If these guys can't see a way for the factory to be profitable in the current climate and future climate then it probably can't be done. The only thing the government can (and should) do is change the current and future climates, bailing out the factory doesn't solve the core problem.
If the government rescue this factory I will be very disappointed. It is not the job of the government to be subsidising failing businesses or unworkable business models. It's the same reason we should get rid of the green subsidies and why Hinkley shouldn't go ahead and why both Heathrow and Gatwick should be allowed an extra runway each.
I wonder what the absolute minimum steel production rate is in a world where there is no new construction going on.
I guess scrap metal recycling is the absolute minimum for durable goods.
Sanjeev Gupta of Liberty House was on C4 news last night. His company is buying up the old steel works and puttig them back in business. The difference is he is reusing recycled steel. He said that steel production in the UK at around 10 million tons a year was pretty much matched by the amount of steel being recycled. His whole business model is based on that cycle.
Flexible cost base: Check Cheap raw materials: Check No debt as bought from receiever: Check
In the US, Nucor (based almost entirely on steel recycling) destroyed US Steel (big integrated plants like Port Talbot).
The Tories won't go near any hint of nationalisation and Labour has its own problems.
China is dumping steel and the EU will prevent major tariffs, but Labour can't go big on that because they like the EU. Energy costs are too high but Labour can't go big on that because Wallace put them on to be Green. So nationalisation, it is.
The BBC are tip-toeing round the tariff issue because of their own sensitivity.
Wouldn't it be nice if people were honest?
It's a bit more complicated that that.
For a long while, China was in a big construction boom - a little like Spain's during early 2000s. It reached a point where China was sucking up more than half of the world's steel and concrete.
A booming China meant rising steel prices and, the free market being the free market, it led to new steel production being built worldwide. Sure, a lot of it was in China, but new steel plant was built worldwide.
Chinese steel demand peaked in 2013. It could well fall 50% from peak. And this at a time when steel capacity was being build on the assumption that China would continue to consume ever increasing quantities of steel.
Simplifying greatly, steel plants (and other plants) have two types of costs: the capital cost committed at the start of the project, and the ongoing cost of operating the plant. The first cost is captured on the P&L statement through 'depreciation' - a non-cash charge which reflects the fact that machines and buildings and the like do not last forever. Firms will often run at capacity even when they are making a loss, because a large chunk of their costs are depreciation. If you are hugely in debt, so long as you are short-term cashflow positive (i.e. covering the cost of operating the plant, even if not covering your initial capital costs), you will produce.
This is largely what's going on in China. Look at Hebei Iron and Steel - a quoted Chinese steel maker. It's operating cash flow positive... just. But it needs to run its plants at capacity (or to shutter them) to remain that way.
There is too much steel capacity globally. Massively too much. Perhaps a quarter of the world's steel plants will close in the next three to five years. This isn't 'Chinese dumping' as part of some war. This is the inevitable consequence of an industry where capacity grew massively faster than (the new level of) demand.
Right now, ArcellorMittal, Tata Steel and others are going round the world trying to gather up subsidies. These subsidies just maintain excess capacity. We should offer massive amounts of support to the people of Port Talbot. But we cannot get into the business of propping up 90th percentile plants in a massively over-supplied industries.
Thanks as ever Robert - insightful real world analysis.
If the government rescue this factory I will be very disappointed. It is not the job of the government to be subsidising failing businesses or unworkable business models. It's the same reason we should get rid of the green subsidies and why Hinkley shouldn't go ahead and why both Heathrow and Gatwick should be allowed an extra runway each.
Sadly, Port Talbot is in the 90th cost percentile for steel plants worldwide. That means that 90% of plants produce steel more cheaply. This is nothing to do with labour regulations, or green stuff: it is a consequence of this being a really old plant compared to newer ones with much lower operating costs.
Is it anything to do with pay compared to the developing world? I guess so.
That is certainly a factor.
But labour is a relatively small part of steel production costs. And it is also a simplification to think of all steel being alike.
The biggest components are: the cost of iron ore (being near a mine makes a hug difference), the cost of energy (being near stranded gas assets is good), and the efficiency of the plant (the amount of energy needed to turn iron ore into steel). Furthermore, there are high quality steels (which command a premium price) and lower quality steels.
Port Talbot produces commodity, low-end steel. It produces it in a factory which is - in parts - more than 70 years old. It has no cheap local gas feedstock. And it needs to pay to transport iron ore from mines around the world.
There are steel plants around the world (and around Europe) that used the years of the Chinese boom to modernise and to move to higher grade steels. Port Talbot did not. It's management - Tata Steel of India - chose to treat it as a cash cow. The consequence is that - in the current steel price environment - it is not economic to operate. If China was cut off from the world - and didn't export or import steel - it would probably not be economic. It's in the wrong place, it pays too much for energy, and it's an old and inefficient plant.
Surely the reason Tata turned it into a cash cow was because there is no future for energy intensive industry in this country. It is an (intended?) effect of the Climate Change Act of 2008, energy intensive industries will not be able to operate by 2020-2022 as the burden of green subsidies will continue to rise compared to other parts of the world. It makes little sense to make continued investments into a plant that will eventually become loss-making because of government policy. Harsh for the 40,000 workers who are about to lose their jobs, but the culprit isn't the management but the hostile business environment created by the government for energy intensive industries.
American academe is diseased (so is the UK but its less advanced). In the end this crap might kill universities in the great centres of western intellectual endeavour. Sad.
Can you imagine this willpower-sapping-shit being tolerated in Hong Kong, Singapore or indeed mainland China?
Our USP as western liberal democracies is - or was - the free exchange and interplay of ideas, cultures, influences, ideologies, opinions. We casually burn it down.
Mind you, it was a treat to see the white Rasta get his comeuppance.
Yeah, he was clearly a Guardianista Millennial hipster wanker. She was a feminazi Black Lives Matter More Than Others bitch. And they turned on each other!
It is very entertaining to see the Left devour itself. As a rightwinger I sometimes just stand back, applaud, and CHORTLE
He's probably a Bernie Sanders voter and Sanders' support is hideously white.
American academe is diseased (so is the UK but its less advanced). In the end this crap might kill universities in the great centres of western intellectual endeavour. Sad.
Can you imagine this willpower-sapping-shit being tolerated in Hong Kong, Singapore or indeed mainland China?
Our USP as western liberal democracies is - or was - the free exchange and interplay of ideas, cultures, influences, ideologies, opinions. We casually burn it down.
Mind you, it was a treat to see the white Rasta get his comeuppance.
I love reggae, and have a great collection of roots and dub, but it is obvious to anyone that whiteboys with dreads look like plonkers!
Mind you the dreadlocks are supposedly in the style of Jesus (who was a Nazarene with uncut hair) so arguably a cultural appropriation from jewish culture. If the bloke was Jewish he should trump her in the cultural appropriation top trumps!
American academe is diseased (so is the UK but its less advanced). In the end this crap might kill universities in the great centres of western intellectual endeavour. Sad.
Can you imagine this willpower-sapping-shit being tolerated in Hong Kong, Singapore or indeed mainland China?
Our USP as western liberal democracies is - or was - the free exchange and interplay of ideas, cultures, influences, ideologies, opinions. We casually burn it down.
I think we're less affected in the UK because we pick our degree subjects right at the beginning. Tuition fees and the withdrawal of government funding for humanities teaching means that more students are opting for 'useful' subjects where this kind of thing has no purchase.
In the USA, everyone takes a broader set of courses, so all students are more likely to take some bull**** ideological classes which promote this kind of thinking.
The astonishing aspect of all this is quite how deeply this eerie leftwing thought-criminology has infected the very highest echelons of American academic life. i.e. It's not tiny obscure colleges suffering these weird scandals and censorships and viral videos, it's the Ivy League and UCLA, et al.
I guess there could be a brain drain from the USA if there is a developed country with greater leniency on university grounds.
American academe is diseased (so is the UK but its less advanced). In the end this crap might kill universities in the great centres of western intellectual endeavour. Sad.
Can you imagine this willpower-sapping-shit being tolerated in Hong Kong, Singapore or indeed mainland China?
Our USP as western liberal democracies is - or was - the free exchange and interplay of ideas, cultures, influences, ideologies, opinions. We casually burn it down.
Mind you, it was a treat to see the white Rasta get his comeuppance.
I love reggae, and have a great collection of roots and dub, but it is obvious to anyone that whiteboys with dreads look like plonkers!
Mind you the dreadlocks are supposedly in the style of Jesus (who was a Nazarene with uncut hair) so arguably a cultural appropriation from jewish culture. If the bloke was Jewish he should trump her in the cultural appropriation top trumps!
If Javid's line is nothing can be done, then he should resign as he obviously has no job.
Maybe his job is about encouraging more productive industries that aren't flooding the market at rock-bottom prices.
Earlier today we were discussing whether a risk to a potential 2% change in GDP is a "price worth paying". I believe from memory the steel industry as a whole is currently worth 0.1% of GDP.
Since 2008 RBS has lost on average £19.5 million per day. Why's it still there ?
Because it has more potential and is more strategically important with more critical failures down the chain if it failed than a single commodity supplier. Though if the government decided to asset strip and close RBS I'd be perfectly OK with that too. I see no reason why RBS shouldn't be allowed to fail so you're possibly going down the wrong path with that for me.
We have one steel manufacturer and umpteen banks. Hows RBS strategic ?
In the short term every big bank is critical. How many businesses depend upon RBS to supply their financing? How many consumers have their finances with the bank? What happens to all those people and businesses if their bank vanishes overnight?
In contrast if a commodity supplier goes bust then there are plenty of other suppliers to smoothly take up the slack without a fraction of as much disruption.
As I said though that's a short-term issue. I'd have no qualms with the bank being shut down but its operations need to be transferred first.
The bank is bust. Even Osborne accepts that he should have broken it up and created more competition by relaunching several new banks from a restructured entity.
As for megabanks we already have 3 others. A fourth looks superfluous not strategic.
How's that differ from what I said?
EDIT: In my first post I said I'd be perfectly OK if the government decided to "asset strip and close RBS" and in the second that "I'd have no qualms with the bank being shut down". What from either of those implies I think the bank should be saved as it is?
Surely the reason Tata turned it into a cash cow was because there is no future for energy intensive industry in this country. It is an (intended?) effect of the Climate Change Act of 2008, energy intensive industries will not be able to operate by 2020-2022 as the burden of green subsidies will continue to rise compared to other parts of the world. It makes little sense to make continued investments into a plant that will eventually become loss-making because of government policy. Harsh for the 40,000 workers who are about to lose their jobs, but the culprit isn't the management but the hostile business environment created by the government for energy intensive industries.
Point of order: Port Talbot employs 4,000 people. 40,000 is the number who could be affected by second order effects.
That is - I'm sure - a factor. But it's worth remembering the Tata plant in North Wales is profitable. And it's worth remembering there are plenty of steel mills in the UK, and indeed in the rest of Europe, that are lower cost.
Converting a really old plant to a modern one is incredibly difficult. It's probably cheaper to build a new mini-mill with natural gas cogen.
If the government rescue this factory I will be very disappointed. It is not the job of the government to be subsidising failing businesses or unworkable business models. It's the same reason we should get rid of the green subsidies and why Hinkley shouldn't go ahead and why both Heathrow and Gatwick should be allowed an extra runway each.
Sadly, Port Talbot is in the 90th cost percentile for steel plants worldwide. That means that 90% of plants produce steel more cheaply. This is nothing to do with labour regulations, or green stuff: it is a consequence of this being a really old plant compared to newer ones with much lower operating costs.
My guess is that the investment required to bring fixed costs down will be too high to yield a decent RoI and that Tata would get a better RoI building a new factory somewhere else which has lower energy and unit labour costs. The opportunity cost of keeping Port Talbot open with hundreds of millions of investment for what might only yield 1-2% would be very high.
As always an investment like that would have to be done with an eye on the future and with the way energy and labour costs are rising there is no guarantee that a currently profitable investment won't become loss-making in 10-12 years. If the government moved to eliminate subsidies for green energy and struck a bargain with the union to have a wage freeze for at least 5 years so that the unit labour cost to production cost ratio starts to make more sense then I could see Tata willing to invest and stay in Port Talbot. The government needs to look at supply side reforms rather than a state bailout.
This is how I see it, if there was a chance that the company could make a profit out of this factory then they would do it, the Tata management have proven long-term thinking and long term investment planning. If these guys can't see a way for the factory to be profitable in the current climate and future climate then it probably can't be done. The only thing the government can (and should) do is change the current and future climates, bailing out the factory doesn't solve the core problem.
Exactly.
A modern mini-mill powered by an arc-furnace built in combination with a CCGT would have low input costs, require very few staff, and could operate at times when wholesale electricity prices were low.
American academe is diseased (so is the UK but its less advanced). In the end this crap might kill universities in the great centres of western intellectual endeavour. Sad.
Can you imagine this willpower-sapping-shit being tolerated in Hong Kong, Singapore or indeed mainland China?
Our USP as western liberal democracies is - or was - the free exchange and interplay of ideas, cultures, influences, ideologies, opinions. We casually burn it down.
I think we're less affected in the UK because we pick our degree subjects right at the beginning. Tuition fees and the withdrawal of government funding for humanities teaching means that more students are opting for 'useful' subjects where this kind of thing has no purchase.
In the USA, everyone takes a broader set of courses, so all students are more likely to take some bull**** ideological classes which promote this kind of thinking.
I never really understood the whole college/uni system in the USA. At what point does someone specialise in a particular subject so they come out with a degree in say mathematics?
American academe is diseased (so is the UK but its less advanced). In the end this crap might kill universities in the great centres of western intellectual endeavour. Sad.
Can you imagine this willpower-sapping-shit being tolerated in Hong Kong, Singapore or indeed mainland China?
Our USP as western liberal democracies is - or was - the free exchange and interplay of ideas, cultures, influences, ideologies, opinions. We casually burn it down.
Mind you, it was a treat to see the white Rasta get his comeuppance.
Yeah, he was clearly a Guardianista Millennial hipster wanker. She was a feminazi Black Lives Matter More Than Others bitch. And they turned on each other!
It is very entertaining to see the Left devour itself. As a rightwinger I sometimes just stand back, applaud, and CHORTLE
The Republicans are way into that "devour itself" process, perhaps final stages. Speaking about devouring itself:
£160 if the Trump gets the nom. Pennies if one of the Contested Convention NotTrumps gets it and +£15 quid if a screamingly unlikely Field candidate gets it.
American academe is diseased (so is the UK but its less advanced). In the end this crap might kill universities in the great centres of western intellectual endeavour. Sad.
Can you imagine this willpower-sapping-shit being tolerated in Hong Kong, Singapore or indeed mainland China?
Our USP as western liberal democracies is - or was - the free exchange and interplay of ideas, cultures, influences, ideologies, opinions. We casually burn it down.
Mind you, it was a treat to see the white Rasta get his comeuppance.
I love reggae, and have a great collection of roots and dub, but it is obvious to anyone that whiteboys with dreads look like plonkers!
Mind you the dreadlocks are supposedly in the style of Jesus (who was a Nazarene with uncut hair) so arguably a cultural appropriation from jewish culture. If the bloke was Jewish he should trump her in the cultural appropriation top trumps!
American academe is diseased (so is the UK but its less advanced). In the end this crap might kill universities in the great centres of western intellectual endeavour. Sad.
Can you imagine this willpower-sapping-shit being tolerated in Hong Kong, Singapore or indeed mainland China?
Our USP as western liberal democracies is - or was - the free exchange and interplay of ideas, cultures, influences, ideologies, opinions. We casually burn it down.
Mind you, it was a treat to see the white Rasta get his comeuppance.
I love reggae, and have a great collection of roots and dub, but it is obvious to anyone that whiteboys with dreads look like plonkers!
Mind you the dreadlocks are supposedly in the style of Jesus (who was a Nazarene with uncut hair) so arguably a cultural appropriation from jewish culture. If the bloke was Jewish he should trump her in the cultural appropriation top trumps!
I don't know, nothing more disgusting in my book than a black person straightening their hair... So insulting to my culture #joke
Edit: writing this listening to Tracy Chapman 'Behind The Wall'... I'm sure she'd approve
American academe is diseased (so is the UK but its less advanced). In the end this crap might kill universities in the great centres of western intellectual endeavour. Sad.
Can you imagine this willpower-sapping-shit being tolerated in Hong Kong, Singapore or indeed mainland China?
Our USP as western liberal democracies is - or was - the free exchange and interplay of ideas, cultures, influences, ideologies, opinions. We casually burn it down.
Mind you, it was a treat to see the white Rasta get his comeuppance.
I love reggae, and have a great collection of roots and dub, but it is obvious to anyone that whiteboys with dreads look like plonkers!
Mind you the dreadlocks are supposedly in the style of Jesus (who was a Nazarene with uncut hair) so arguably a cultural appropriation from jewish culture. If the bloke was Jewish he should trump her in the cultural appropriation top trumps!
American academe is diseased (so is the UK but its less advanced). In the end this crap might kill universities in the great centres of western intellectual endeavour. Sad.
Can you imagine this willpower-sapping-shit being tolerated in Hong Kong, Singapore or indeed mainland China?
Our USP as western liberal democracies is - or was - the free exchange and interplay of ideas, cultures, influences, ideologies, opinions. We casually burn it down.
Mind you, it was a treat to see the white Rasta get his comeuppance.
I love reggae, and have a great collection of roots and dub, but it is obvious to anyone that whiteboys with dreads look like plonkers!
Mind you the dreadlocks are supposedly in the style of Jesus (who was a Nazarene with uncut hair) so arguably a cultural appropriation from jewish culture. If the bloke was Jewish he should trump her in the cultural appropriation top trumps!
I've read about black people accusing white people with frizzy hair of being racist, despite the fact that a lot of white people have naturally frizzy hair. For example, Rachel Dolezal.
I can remember when Louise Mensch (for it was she) accused me on this site of being a Racist for simply using the phrase "frizzy" in reference to black African hair.
PS then someone else waded in and pointed out that African companies sell shampoo to their consumers specifically for "frizzy" hair and she STFU. For once.
Ah yes, she used to give us a good laugh...what a ludicrous person
Comments
He is polling +50% in 12 CD's; he is between 40% and 50% in 7 CD's.
Anyway Trump would earn 79 delegates:
12 x 3= 36
14 X 2= 28
1 x 1 = 1
PV= 14
Total 79
If Trump could convert the 7 CD's currently below 50% to above 50% he would add another 7 D to arrive at 86D.
Is that the same as the multiple re-launches of Gordon Brown when PM?
For Cameron now to cut short his holiday and rush back for crisis talks is just pure humbug. By continuing with the ludicrous Climate Change Act Cameron has decided to sacrifice the livelihood of tens of thousands of workers just so he and his ilk can feel good about themselves and prance about on the "World Stage" pretending they are leading the world.
In order for Trump to cover his loses he needs to win at least 6 out of the 8 districts if he loses the state, if Cruz leads by 10 then he might win only 1 out of 8.
Anyway I may be reading the tea leaves of math but the signs point that Trump won't get to 1237, the NeverTrumps will never give up, the GOP will blow up in the convention, Trump will run as an independent in most states and actively campaign against elected republicans up and down america, resulting in massive loses for the GOP in Congress.
Winner:Democrats, the only sure bet, as I've been saying for weeks now.
Not possible to run as an independent, too late for almost all places.
Check out the Atlanta FED GDPNow forecast. The US is already in a slowdown, this will feed through to the general public in the next few months, forward looking indicators look bad too.
Although I suppose I should be glad one's right for once!±
Let's suppose that the convention comes round and Trump gets 1180 to say 900 for Cruz, 300 for Kasich and 100 or so miscellaneous and unpledged. If you're a loyal unpledged GOP foot-soldier, what do you do? Vote Trump, who may lead the party to disaster? Or vote Cruz, and split the party down the middle? I don't know what ordinary GOPers would be likely to do in that situation. normally, I'd think that being very close to a majority would be enough - just make a couple of deals to put you over. But this year? Hmm.
Closing down relatively energy efficient industries in the UK so that more coal fired power stations can open in China is counterproductive.
One day the full story will be told.
Polar bears count for more than the livelihoods of thousands of human workers and their dependents in the eyes of many politicians. It's shameful.
For a long while, China was in a big construction boom - a little like Spain's during early 2000s. It reached a point where China was sucking up more than half of the world's steel and concrete.
A booming China meant rising steel prices and, the free market being the free market, it led to new steel production being built worldwide. Sure, a lot of it was in China, but new steel plant was built worldwide.
Chinese steel demand peaked in 2013. It could well fall 50% from peak. And this at a time when steel capacity was being build on the assumption that China would continue to consume ever increasing quantities of steel.
Simplifying greatly, steel plants (and other plants) have two types of costs: the capital cost committed at the start of the project, and the ongoing cost of operating the plant. The first cost is captured on the P&L statement through 'depreciation' - a non-cash charge which reflects the fact that machines and buildings and the like do not last forever. Firms will often run at capacity even when they are making a loss, because a large chunk of their costs are depreciation. If you are hugely in debt, so long as you are short-term cashflow positive (i.e. covering the cost of operating the plant, even if not covering your initial capital costs), you will produce.
This is largely what's going on in China. Look at Hebei Iron and Steel - a quoted Chinese steel maker. It's operating cash flow positive... just. But it needs to run its plants at capacity (or to shutter them) to remain that way.
There is too much steel capacity globally. Massively too much. Perhaps a quarter of the world's steel plants will close in the next three to five years. This isn't 'Chinese dumping' as part of some war. This is the inevitable consequence of an industry where capacity grew massively faster than (the new level of) demand.
Right now, ArcellorMittal, Tata Steel and others are going round the world trying to gather up subsidies. These subsidies just maintain excess capacity. We should offer massive amounts of support to the people of Port Talbot. But we cannot get into the business of propping up 90th percentile plants in a massively over-supplied industries.
Cruz looks like a short fat vampire, why would anyone think that the ladies will like him, his personality ?
He is also not fabulously wealthy that he can attract them with piles of money.
Someone got gulled.
It is not the job of Government to run industry.
At the same time it is not the job of government to enact laws which make it impossible to run industry and the moronic energy taxes should be dumped.
I guess scrap metal recycling is the absolute minimum for durable goods.
Well yes and no - there is no question that dumping is going on.
Moreover, there is also no question that a large part of the capacity cuts necessary in steel should happen in China.
But equally, the Chinese will be keen as you like to minimise that share and maximise the share borne by everyone else. In particular, because of the social consequences and potential for unrest that massive cutbacks in China would risk.
They can get away with this by massive implicit subsidies through the banking system.
In contrast if a commodity supplier goes bust then there are plenty of other suppliers to smoothly take up the slack without a fraction of as much disruption.
As I said though that's a short-term issue. I'd have no qualms with the bank being shut down but its operations need to be transferred first.
As for megabanks we already have 3 others. A fourth looks superfluous not strategic.
But labour is a relatively small part of steel production costs. And it is also a simplification to think of all steel being alike.
The biggest components are: the cost of iron ore (being near a mine makes a hug difference), the cost of energy (being near stranded gas assets is good), and the efficiency of the plant (the amount of energy needed to turn iron ore into steel). Furthermore, there are high quality steels (which command a premium price) and lower quality steels.
Port Talbot produces commodity, low-end steel. It produces it in a factory which is - in parts - more than 70 years old. It has no cheap local gas feedstock. And it needs to pay to transport iron ore from mines around the world.
There are steel plants around the world (and around Europe) that used the years of the Chinese boom to modernise and to move to higher grade steels. Port Talbot did not. It's management - Tata Steel of India - chose to treat it as a cash cow. The consequence is that - in the current steel price environment - it is not economic to operate. If China was cut off from the world - and didn't export or import steel - it would probably not be economic. It's in the wrong place, it pays too much for energy, and it's an old and inefficient plant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=md3B3I7Nmvw
BATTERY
The stagnation in world trade has probably delayed the inevitable crisis, but imports need to actually decline, you can't cover 5% of GDP per year forever.
That's were Brexit comes as a potential saviour of the economy in the long term, assuming that with Brexit the trade deficit with the EU will decline to normal levels, a balance of payments crisis can be avoided.
That's why that scandal never took off.
With Rubio some people may have believed it, because he is handsome, but Cruz is not.
It crosses the frontiers of the plausible.
https://twitter.com/PatrickSvitek/status/711248235545780224
Those who say we need a steel industry for "strategic" reasons need to remember that we'd still be utterly dependent on imported iron ore.
In the USA, everyone takes a broader set of courses, so all students are more likely to take some bull**** ideological classes which promote this kind of thinking.
As always an investment like that would have to be done with an eye on the future and with the way energy and labour costs are rising there is no guarantee that a currently profitable investment won't become loss-making in 10-12 years. If the government moved to eliminate subsidies for green energy and struck a bargain with the union to have a wage freeze for at least 5 years so that the unit labour cost to production cost ratio starts to make more sense then I could see Tata willing to invest and stay in Port Talbot. The government needs to look at supply side reforms rather than a state bailout.
This is how I see it, if there was a chance that the company could make a profit out of this factory then they would do it, the Tata management have proven long-term thinking and long term investment planning. If these guys can't see a way for the factory to be profitable in the current climate and future climate then it probably can't be done. The only thing the government can (and should) do is change the current and future climates, bailing out the factory doesn't solve the core problem.
Cheap raw materials: Check
No debt as bought from receiever: Check
In the US, Nucor (based almost entirely on steel recycling) destroyed US Steel (big integrated plants like Port Talbot).
Mind you the dreadlocks are supposedly in the style of Jesus (who was a Nazarene with uncut hair) so arguably a cultural appropriation from jewish culture. If the bloke was Jewish he should trump her in the cultural appropriation top trumps!
EDIT: In my first post I said I'd be perfectly OK if the government decided to "asset strip and close RBS" and in the second that "I'd have no qualms with the bank being shut down". What from either of those implies I think the bank should be saved as it is?
That is - I'm sure - a factor. But it's worth remembering the Tata plant in North Wales is profitable. And it's worth remembering there are plenty of steel mills in the UK, and indeed in the rest of Europe, that are lower cost.
Converting a really old plant to a modern one is incredibly difficult. It's probably cheaper to build a new mini-mill with natural gas cogen.
A modern mini-mill powered by an arc-furnace built in combination with a CCGT would have low input costs, require very few staff, and could operate at times when wholesale electricity prices were low.
Speaking about devouring itself:
https://twitter.com/alivitali/status/715244637410041856
£160 if the Trump gets the nom. Pennies if one of the Contested Convention NotTrumps gets it and +£15 quid if a screamingly unlikely Field candidate gets it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDJ8ocSN5GE
Edit: writing this listening to Tracy Chapman 'Behind The Wall'... I'm sure she'd approve
http://get-knotted.weebly.com/nazarites.html
Indeed deciphering roots reggae lyrics often requires a bit of bible study usually KJV.