WRT the US economy, it’s far less impressive than it’s touted to be. The US is far more a country of pettifogging bureaucracy, overtaxation (except for the super rich), absurd amounts of money wasted on a mediocre healthcare system, and grinding poverty at the bottom, than it is the land of the free and rugged entrepreneurs.
One of the big reasons it's done so well is because the average US person sticks their money into the stock market far more than we do here, where it's either cash or buying more houses - both of which are, in the round, non or low producing assets; whereas in the US the big companies have so much implied capital they can just buy anything halfway promising elsewhere in the world.
Stocks appear to be another thing people look at and say 'You made money in the markets? Then we should have taxed you more!'. Look at the perma-onanism around the idea of a financial transaction tax.
Most people don’t understand stocks, and see such investments as gambling. Whereas, if you spread your risk, it’s as safe as depositing money in a building society, with a far better rate of return.
No it isn't.
Even a widely diversified holding is exposed to various risks that cash saving isn't. A general fall in markets will affect a widely-diversified holding as it will a concentrated holding. Cash doesn't have the capital risk that investment does.
My old boss and mentor used to say 'share money is spare money'.
Depends on perceptions and timescales. In the short term a savings account is safer than a global tracker, in the long term it is a guarantee of loss.
Only if your savings rate is below your personal rate of inflation. Negative real interest rates is a comparatively new phenomenon. Most people cannot afford to lose any capital, and those chasing leech fees, aka commission, have an incentive to over-invest clients. And they do.
I suspect financial institutions make far bigger margins/leech fees on savings accounts than investment accounts.
If you don't move your savings accounts at least once a year, banks and building societies all take advantage.
The problem is a misunderstanding of the way management fees are presented.
So if a fund hypothetically returns 10% per year, the difference between a 1% tracker fee and a 3% managed fund fee is not 2%, but 20%. If the fund returns 5% per year, it’s a 40% difference that cuts your returns *in half*.
I have arrived in Naples, Italy, after my arduous flight from Gatwick. I’m settled in a glamorous apartment in the Quattro Spagnoli, the old romantic Spanish quarters where Vespas fizz over the cobbles and the laundry hangs like flags of endless Italian surrender
I’ve got my AirPods3 in their shiny new pod. I’m ready to do my grand even futuristic experiment: do they really work as Babelfish? Does the translate function truly allow you to move smoothly through foreign languages, understanding everything, instantly?
Only problem: I’ve just discovered that Apple doesn’t offer instant Italian translation, yet. And you aren’t allowed to use these things in the EU, by law, so you can’t download the software
Situation excellent: avanti!
Should have invited my granddaughter along, as she is fluent in Italian and spent a year at Turin University !!!!
Not sure you’ve entirely grasped the purpose of my experiment
Do the AirPods translate what you say too? Or how does that side of the conversation go? Presumably because you are English, if the Italians don't understand you just shout louder until they do?
Nope. Which is a major drawback. The other person has to be wearing them as well
I’ve found some Spanish people and tried it and the translation is laggy and glitchy - but it works. So you can see that eventually - 2 years? - this tech will be transformative
The chat with an Ai expert last week said what I think you have said AI is as bad now as it will ever be - it will only improve. I'm setting a literature review this morning for 3rd year students. I will be explicitly telling them to use AI and reflect on its use. Eventually assessment will need to go back to the old style viva voce.
That is one thing I have them found bad, using AI for "literature review", both from these dedicated start-ups and general LLMs. Which is quite surprising given there is google scholar, arxiv, which collate all this infomration.
Yes. In preparation for setting the task I had a go myself with Copilot (probably not the best, but thats the official one for the Uni). Despite carefully tailoring prompts etc its still around 45%. I asked for 3000 words and it returned about 800 of vagueness.
One of my colleagues is enamoured of using it as a search engine, as it is perhaps better at finding the articles you want than say Web of Science (my go to) or Embase, Pubmed. Those can tend to throw up a lot of references, depending on how you search.
I have found they miss a lot of important papers, while including lots that yes they cite a particular paper but are tangential at best. It's that missing "understanding" of context that an knowledgeable person in the field can see when it is relevant and when it isn't.
All of which is quite surprising to me as publications are listed, tagged and collated.
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
Plenty of the people shouting at buildings are comfortable, and some are well off. As for those inciting them, well they’re well off beyond any historical parallel. Including inciter in chief, the richest man in the world.
You mean the people massed on the pavements with their flags and placards aren't hardworking just managing concerned parents of vulnerable young children? Perhaps more money for HMRC, building services and trading standards would be the leftfield solution?
On Starmer, I think the most insightful, and empathetic, comment on this was from John McDonnell on WATO, who said he'd worked with Keir for a long time and if things haven't improved and his personal ratings are a problem then Keir will step aside. Expect a managed coronation, so not Burnham, I'm happy with my bet on Milliband.
He's semi incoherent and a several times loser. My money would be Wes Streeting. The most articulate by a distance
Wes Streeting will be tagged as the continuity Blairite candidate, and that's unlikely to be a net benefit.
Ed Miliband occupies the soft-left comfort ground for a wounded Labour party that wants to feel good about itself, while avoiding the internal infighting of the Corbyn period.
Unless there's a younger standard bearer for that group, then I think Ed has a great chance of winning a Labour leadership election if there is one in the nearish future.
I think Ed is toxic for people who really wanted David Miliband. It's not rational, but it is real. I've been unimpressed with Streeting which probably means he'll get it.
I think membership would be very keen to choose a woman. Shabana Mahmood is a relatively fresh face which people might want. Also, no one is talking about Yvette Cooper - I think she's probably in with a shout.
Doesn’t this just say so much about the dire state of our politicians.
What has Cooper ever really done? What has she achieved? What is “Cooperism”, her vision for fixing the country? As far as I can see it would just be more bland centrist orthodoxy and apart from her physical make-up I can’t see why she would be any different or better than Starmer.
She’s been a high profile MP for a long time and I cannot for the life of me think of anything she’s ever said that made me take notice.
Thanks also for the kind messages and prayers sent to me and my wife after the birth of our stillborn son a few days ago. To update we have been able to hold him, read to him, write a card of our love for him and have a few days with him at least. The hospital chaplain also gave him a blessing. We named him Theo.
That sounds as though the hospital are on the ball, and have thinking about you as part of their practice - which is good.
But how do we mourn adults known to us who die? I see a reticence about that, sometimes - though things have changed significantly over say 3-4 decades.
(When my mum died in hospital in 2019, I went and spent some time with her body - saying goodbye, starting to put my memories in order and put her in the pas, and so on.)
@HYUFD I have been thinking of you on & off since hearing your very sad news. Wishing you & your wife the best at this most difficult time.
My wife still occasionally talks about the way a stillbirth affected her mother - grief can be very hard & can strike at the most unexpected moments. I hope you both have people you feel able to talk to whilst supporting each other.
I read in the Grauniad that Keith's speech is going to say that the answer to the rise of the far right is growth.
OK, fine. Poverty is the driver of all of these protests - people feeling well off and content in their lot do not feel the need to shout at buildings.
But *how* are we to get this growth? Because the investment we need to be making in jobs and skills and infrastructure we're not going to make because apparently we can't afford it.
To be honest I think the era of perpetual growth is over. What comes next? I don’t know. It probably won’t be great though.
We are on the verge of a tech inspired growth explosion that might be more impactful than the taming of fire. The real question is the extent to which that new wealth (and associated power) gets concentrated.
I have arrived in Naples, Italy, after my arduous flight from Gatwick. I’m settled in a glamorous apartment in the Quattro Spagnoli, the old romantic Spanish quarters where Vespas fizz over the cobbles and the laundry hangs like flags of endless Italian surrender
I’ve got my AirPods3 in their shiny new pod. I’m ready to do my grand even futuristic experiment: do they really work as Babelfish? Does the translate function truly allow you to move smoothly through foreign languages, understanding everything, instantly?
Only problem: I’ve just discovered that Apple doesn’t offer instant Italian translation, yet. And you aren’t allowed to use these things in the EU, by law, so you can’t download the software
Situation excellent: avanti!
Should have invited my granddaughter along, as she is fluent in Italian and spent a year at Turin University !!!!
Not sure you’ve entirely grasped the purpose of my experiment
Do the AirPods translate what you say too? Or how does that side of the conversation go? Presumably because you are English, if the Italians don't understand you just shout louder until they do?
Nope. Which is a major drawback. The other person has to be wearing them as well
I’ve found some Spanish people and tried it and the translation is laggy and glitchy - but it works. So you can see that eventually - 2 years? - this tech will be transformative
The chat with an Ai expert last week said what I think you have said AI is as bad now as it will ever be - it will only improve. I'm setting a literature review this morning for 3rd year students. I will be explicitly telling them to use AI and reflect on its use. Eventually assessment will need to go back to the old style viva voce.
That is one thing I have them found bad, using AI for "literature review", both from these dedicated start-ups and general LLMs. Which is quite surprising given there is google scholar, arxiv, which collate all this infomration.
Yes. In preparation for setting the task I had a go myself with Copilot (probably not the best, but thats the official one for the Uni). Despite carefully tailoring prompts etc its still around 45%. I asked for 3000 words and it returned about 800 of vagueness.
One of my colleagues is enamoured of using it as a search engine, as it is perhaps better at finding the articles you want than say Web of Science (my go to) or Embase, Pubmed. Those can tend to throw up a lot of references, depending on how you search.
ChatGTP is often a better search engine when looking for poorly-linked obscure/very obscure topics. Google doesn't seem to have got its head around the big lumps of data that places like Archive.org and Bitsavers hold.
Well that isn't really a surprise because it will have be trained on archive data. Google is trying to give you links to currently active websites based upon how sites link to one anothet and people navigate the web.
Yes, and that's a problem. They're obsessed with the new and they broke the linkgraph with 'nofollow' because it was easier than spam detection.
OT Oxford Dictionaries have new words in time for Christmas, including:-
Generation Alpha: the generation born between the early 2010s and mid 2020s, noted as the first to be born in an era of widespread digital technology and social media and as having their childhood disrupted by the Covid-19 pandemic
Just a small point, but those born 2022 and beyond have not had a childhood disrupted by Covid. They should in theory have better socialisation and so on than older cohorts.
I have arrived in Naples, Italy, after my arduous flight from Gatwick. I’m settled in a glamorous apartment in the Quattro Spagnoli, the old romantic Spanish quarters where Vespas fizz over the cobbles and the laundry hangs like flags of endless Italian surrender
I’ve got my AirPods3 in their shiny new pod. I’m ready to do my grand even futuristic experiment: do they really work as Babelfish? Does the translate function truly allow you to move smoothly through foreign languages, understanding everything, instantly?
Only problem: I’ve just discovered that Apple doesn’t offer instant Italian translation, yet. And you aren’t allowed to use these things in the EU, by law, so you can’t download the software
Situation excellent: avanti!
Should have invited my granddaughter along, as she is fluent in Italian and spent a year at Turin University !!!!
Not sure you’ve entirely grasped the purpose of my experiment
Do the AirPods translate what you say too? Or how does that side of the conversation go? Presumably because you are English, if the Italians don't understand you just shout louder until they do?
Nope. Which is a major drawback. The other person has to be wearing them as well
I’ve found some Spanish people and tried it and the translation is laggy and glitchy - but it works. So you can see that eventually - 2 years? - this tech will be transformative
The chat with an Ai expert last week said what I think you have said AI is as bad now as it will ever be - it will only improve. I'm setting a literature review this morning for 3rd year students. I will be explicitly telling them to use AI and reflect on its use. Eventually assessment will need to go back to the old style viva voce.
That is one thing I have them found bad, using AI for "literature review", both from these dedicated start-ups and general LLMs. Which is quite surprising given there is google scholar, arxiv, which collate all this infomration.
Yes. In preparation for setting the task I had a go myself with Copilot (probably not the best, but thats the official one for the Uni). Despite carefully tailoring prompts etc its still around 45%. I asked for 3000 words and it returned about 800 of vagueness.
One of my colleagues is enamoured of using it as a search engine, as it is perhaps better at finding the articles you want than say Web of Science (my go to) or Embase, Pubmed. Those can tend to throw up a lot of references, depending on how you search.
I have arrived in Naples, Italy, after my arduous flight from Gatwick. I’m settled in a glamorous apartment in the Quattro Spagnoli, the old romantic Spanish quarters where Vespas fizz over the cobbles and the laundry hangs like flags of endless Italian surrender
I’ve got my AirPods3 in their shiny new pod. I’m ready to do my grand even futuristic experiment: do they really work as Babelfish? Does the translate function truly allow you to move smoothly through foreign languages, understanding everything, instantly?
Only problem: I’ve just discovered that Apple doesn’t offer instant Italian translation, yet. And you aren’t allowed to use these things in the EU, by law, so you can’t download the software
Situation excellent: avanti!
I don't believe you can use third party translation apps either.
I don’t know if it’s the EU law actually blocking my download or not - I do know these Babelfish AirPods aren’t legally functional in the EU (yes, they’re a Brexit benefit)
Anyway I just used a vpn routed via the UK and it’s worked. Just tested them now. It actually works
Now I’m heading out into Naples, Italy, to find people who speak Spanish, German or French
Obviously the Union of European Translators did enough lobbying against Big Nasty American Technology, on one of their monthly trips between Brussels and Strasbourg.
This is becoming a real issue for the EU. It is regulating new tech into oblivion, guaranteeing the EU falls critically behind at a crucial stage. Like a government outlawing steam power in 1836
No doubt Labour is desperate for Britain to copy Brussels
It's the first absolute clear-as-day Brexit bonus: our AI regulation can be different to EU's precautionary principle stuff.
Absolutely, and it’s the sort of thing the government should be all over, massive opportunities to get ahead in a rapidly-developing, potentially game-changing new technology.
Instead they appear determined to copy the EU approach.
The only getting ahead with AI is control of the models as they approach AGI. Use of AI to do a little bit of translation is just fiddling while Rome burns. We control none and Brexit or no Brexit it makes no difference.
There’s an awful lot of EU citizens on social media who disagree with you, vehemently
Yeah but that’s just consumerism. It’s a bonus from a consumer perspective, sure. But the real value in AI is the models themselves and that’s where the wealth will be created.
If I was allowed to talk about this I could tell you all so much more. But I’m not. I could assist @turbotubbs and tell him where he’s going wrong. But I can’t. Hey Ho
Or “ggglem lech mm nyoo” as my AirPods have just put it, translating from German (I forgot to toggle the language)
No they is a big difference between general research and academic research / academic papers. Current LLMs (no amount of prompt engineering) aren't good at this Thus there are a number of start ups trying to address this problem, but my experience so far is they aren't that good.
60 years old. A source of much joy and wonder in the young me. As well as the "FIVE!" countdown, I still remember theme music within the show - like the music for the Crablogger....
Like all sensible PBers, I have the Thunderbirds box set, and gave one as a birth gift to my godson. Imagine a world where rockets return to base for re-use, where communications are monitored by satellite, and where everyone smokes.
The ITV Retro YouTube channel is putting a load of the Gerry and Sylvia Anderson shows up at the moment. There's quite a lot of remastered Thunderbirds and some Joe 90 and Stingray as too. Hopefully they do Captain Scarlett at some point as well.
I have arrived in Naples, Italy, after my arduous flight from Gatwick. I’m settled in a glamorous apartment in the Quattro Spagnoli, the old romantic Spanish quarters where Vespas fizz over the cobbles and the laundry hangs like flags of endless Italian surrender
I’ve got my AirPods3 in their shiny new pod. I’m ready to do my grand even futuristic experiment: do they really work as Babelfish? Does the translate function truly allow you to move smoothly through foreign languages, understanding everything, instantly?
Only problem: I’ve just discovered that Apple doesn’t offer instant Italian translation, yet. And you aren’t allowed to use these things in the EU, by law, so you can’t download the software
Situation excellent: avanti!
Should have invited my granddaughter along, as she is fluent in Italian and spent a year at Turin University !!!!
Not sure you’ve entirely grasped the purpose of my experiment
Do the AirPods translate what you say too? Or how does that side of the conversation go? Presumably because you are English, if the Italians don't understand you just shout louder until they do?
Nope. Which is a major drawback. The other person has to be wearing them as well
I’ve found some Spanish people and tried it and the translation is laggy and glitchy - but it works. So you can see that eventually - 2 years? - this tech will be transformative
The chat with an Ai expert last week said what I think you have said AI is as bad now as it will ever be - it will only improve. I'm setting a literature review this morning for 3rd year students. I will be explicitly telling them to use AI and reflect on its use. Eventually assessment will need to go back to the old style viva voce.
That is one thing I have them found bad, using AI for "literature review", both from these dedicated start-ups and general LLMs. Which is quite surprising given there is google scholar, arxiv, which collate all this infomration.
Yes. In preparation for setting the task I had a go myself with Copilot (probably not the best, but thats the official one for the Uni). Despite carefully tailoring prompts etc its still around 45%. I asked for 3000 words and it returned about 800 of vagueness.
One of my colleagues is enamoured of using it as a search engine, as it is perhaps better at finding the articles you want than say Web of Science (my go to) or Embase, Pubmed. Those can tend to throw up a lot of references, depending on how you search.
I have arrived in Naples, Italy, after my arduous flight from Gatwick. I’m settled in a glamorous apartment in the Quattro Spagnoli, the old romantic Spanish quarters where Vespas fizz over the cobbles and the laundry hangs like flags of endless Italian surrender
I’ve got my AirPods3 in their shiny new pod. I’m ready to do my grand even futuristic experiment: do they really work as Babelfish? Does the translate function truly allow you to move smoothly through foreign languages, understanding everything, instantly?
Only problem: I’ve just discovered that Apple doesn’t offer instant Italian translation, yet. And you aren’t allowed to use these things in the EU, by law, so you can’t download the software
Situation excellent: avanti!
I don't believe you can use third party translation apps either.
I don’t know if it’s the EU law actually blocking my download or not - I do know these Babelfish AirPods aren’t legally functional in the EU (yes, they’re a Brexit benefit)
Anyway I just used a vpn routed via the UK and it’s worked. Just tested them now. It actually works
Now I’m heading out into Naples, Italy, to find people who speak Spanish, German or French
Obviously the Union of European Translators did enough lobbying against Big Nasty American Technology, on one of their monthly trips between Brussels and Strasbourg.
This is becoming a real issue for the EU. It is regulating new tech into oblivion, guaranteeing the EU falls critically behind at a crucial stage. Like a government outlawing steam power in 1836
No doubt Labour is desperate for Britain to copy Brussels
It's the first absolute clear-as-day Brexit bonus: our AI regulation can be different to EU's precautionary principle stuff.
Absolutely, and it’s the sort of thing the government should be all over, massive opportunities to get ahead in a rapidly-developing, potentially game-changing new technology.
Instead they appear determined to copy the EU approach.
The only getting ahead with AI is control of the models as they approach AGI. Use of AI to do a little bit of translation is just fiddling while Rome burns. We control none and Brexit or no Brexit it makes no difference.
There’s an awful lot of EU citizens on social media who disagree with you, vehemently
Yeah but that’s just consumerism. It’s a bonus from a consumer perspective, sure. But the real value in AI is the models themselves and that’s where the wealth will be created.
If I was allowed to talk about this I could tell you all so much more. But I’m not. I could assist @turbotubbs and tell him where he’s going wrong. But I can’t. Hey Ho
Or “ggglem lech mm nyoo” as my AirPods have just put it, translating from German (I forgot to toggle the language)
I have arrived in Naples, Italy, after my arduous flight from Gatwick. I’m settled in a glamorous apartment in the Quattro Spagnoli, the old romantic Spanish quarters where Vespas fizz over the cobbles and the laundry hangs like flags of endless Italian surrender
I’ve got my AirPods3 in their shiny new pod. I’m ready to do my grand even futuristic experiment: do they really work as Babelfish? Does the translate function truly allow you to move smoothly through foreign languages, understanding everything, instantly?
Only problem: I’ve just discovered that Apple doesn’t offer instant Italian translation, yet. And you aren’t allowed to use these things in the EU, by law, so you can’t download the software
Situation excellent: avanti!
Should have invited my granddaughter along, as she is fluent in Italian and spent a year at Turin University !!!!
Not sure you’ve entirely grasped the purpose of my experiment
Do the AirPods translate what you say too? Or how does that side of the conversation go? Presumably because you are English, if the Italians don't understand you just shout louder until they do?
Nope. Which is a major drawback. The other person has to be wearing them as well
I’ve found some Spanish people and tried it and the translation is laggy and glitchy - but it works. So you can see that eventually - 2 years? - this tech will be transformative
The chat with an Ai expert last week said what I think you have said AI is as bad now as it will ever be - it will only improve. I'm setting a literature review this morning for 3rd year students. I will be explicitly telling them to use AI and reflect on its use. Eventually assessment will need to go back to the old style viva voce.
That is one thing I have them found bad, using AI for "literature review", both from these dedicated start-ups and general LLMs. Which is quite surprising given there is google scholar, arxiv, which collate all this infomration.
Yes. In preparation for setting the task I had a go myself with Copilot (probably not the best, but thats the official one for the Uni). Despite carefully tailoring prompts etc its still around 45%. I asked for 3000 words and it returned about 800 of vagueness.
One of my colleagues is enamoured of using it as a search engine, as it is perhaps better at finding the articles you want than say Web of Science (my go to) or Embase, Pubmed. Those can tend to throw up a lot of references, depending on how you search.
Hold on. You read nmr spectra for a living – are you hoping to retire before British universities can afford new, AI-enabled kit?
My job changed over the years. Automation now dominates NMR spectroscopy - I could teach any of you on PB how to submit your sample in about 5 minutes. What happens next is still the same. NMR companies have been working for years on software to 'solve' your data - you obtain NMR data for an unknown compound, show it to the software and out pops your data. Or rather it tends not to, as the data is too poor, or contaminated, or unusual. In protein NMR computers do a lot of the work that used to be done by hand, so a solve that could take 6 months is now days. But the data itself is all important.
But with automation my role changed - I now spend 70% of my time as a Senior Lecturer in Med Chem, so teaching and research, rather than NMR.
I do still sit as the repository of 30 years experience of NMR - a PhD student came with a puzzle on friday which I solved in about 2 minutes. So I still have some use. Plus users still need us to help them get the best from the NMR's.
So I'm not too worried. I nearly became 100% Med Chem last year, but I wanted to retain some NMR component to my life. I guess my journey will be replicated across a lot of areas, just as all advances in technology has done. Now one farmer can farm 100 acres with lots of shiny tractors etc where once it would have been one farmer and 5 farm hands, plus all hands on deck at harvest.
WRT the US economy, it’s far less impressive than it’s touted to be. The US is far more a country of pettifogging bureaucracy, overtaxation (except for the super rich), absurd amounts of money wasted on a mediocre healthcare system, and grinding poverty at the bottom, than it is the land of the free and rugged entrepreneurs.
One of the big reasons it's done so well is because the average US person sticks their money into the stock market far more than we do here, where it's either cash or buying more houses - both of which are, in the round, non or low producing assets; whereas in the US the big companies have so much implied capital they can just buy anything halfway promising elsewhere in the world.
Stocks appear to be another thing people look at and say 'You made money in the markets? Then we should have taxed you more!'. Look at the perma-onanism around the idea of a financial transaction tax.
Most people don’t understand stocks, and see such investments as gambling. Whereas, if you spread your risk, it’s as safe as depositing money in a building society, with a far better rate of return.
No it isn't.
Even a widely diversified holding is exposed to various risks that cash saving isn't. A general fall in markets will affect a widely-diversified holding as it will a concentrated holding. Cash doesn't have the capital risk that investment does.
My old boss and mentor used to say 'share money is spare money'.
Depends on perceptions and timescales. In the short term a savings account is safer than a global tracker, in the long term it is a guarantee of loss.
Only if your savings rate is below your personal rate of inflation. Negative real interest rates is a comparatively new phenomenon. Most people cannot afford to lose any capital, and those chasing leech fees, aka commission, have an incentive to over-invest clients. And they do.
I suspect financial institutions make far bigger margins/leech fees on savings accounts than investment accounts.
If you don't move your savings accounts at least once a year, banks and building societies all take advantage.
The problem is a misunderstanding of the way management fees are presented.
So if a fund hypothetically returns 10% per year, the difference between a 1% tracker fee and a 3% managed fund fee is not 2%, but 20%. If the fund returns 5% per year, it’s a 40% difference that cuts your returns *in half*.
The dirty little secret is that very few actively managed funds consistently outperform a basic tracker fund over time.
Actual costs in the modern world are much lower (assuming investing in a percentage based fee if £1k invested).
Whereas to take an example, Natwest savings account offers 1.06% on savings up to £25k, Lloyds easy saver is 1%. 4.5% is available elsewhere. The high street banks are taking three quarters of your savings return due to customer inertia.
And yet it is investment platforms are seen as charging leech fees not the savings banks. All feeds into why we don't invest enough.
Netanyahu collapsed the last ceasefire process, so I don't see how he can be trusted in any way. Plus Trump regards international treaties as disposable at will, just like domestic law if he can get away with it.
The only key external stakeholder is the USA, surely.
Anti-Netanyahu demonstrations have been running at realistically up to 50-100k (estimates 15k to 600k or so !) in a country with a population of 10 million, of whom 2+ million are the Arab minority, for some time (years).
WRT the US economy, it’s far less impressive than it’s touted to be. The US is far more a country of pettifogging bureaucracy, overtaxation (except for the super rich), absurd amounts of money wasted on a mediocre healthcare system, and grinding poverty at the bottom, than it is the land of the free and rugged entrepreneurs.
One of the big reasons it's done so well is because the average US person sticks their money into the stock market far more than we do here, where it's either cash or buying more houses - both of which are, in the round, non or low producing assets; whereas in the US the big companies have so much implied capital they can just buy anything halfway promising elsewhere in the world.
Stocks appear to be another thing people look at and say 'You made money in the markets? Then we should have taxed you more!'. Look at the perma-onanism around the idea of a financial transaction tax.
Most people don’t understand stocks, and see such investments as gambling. Whereas, if you spread your risk, it’s as safe as depositing money in a building society, with a far better rate of return.
No it isn't.
Even a widely diversified holding is exposed to various risks that cash saving isn't. A general fall in markets will affect a widely-diversified holding as it will a concentrated holding. Cash doesn't have the capital risk that investment does.
My old boss and mentor used to say 'share money is spare money'.
Depends on perceptions and timescales. In the short term a savings account is safer than a global tracker, in the long term it is a guarantee of loss.
Only if your savings rate is below your personal rate of inflation. Negative real interest rates is a comparatively new phenomenon. Most people cannot afford to lose any capital, and those chasing leech fees, aka commission, have an incentive to over-invest clients. And they do.
I suspect financial institutions make far bigger margins/leech fees on savings accounts than investment accounts.
If you don't move your savings accounts at least once a year, banks and building societies all take advantage.
The problem is a misunderstanding of the way management fees are presented.
So if a fund hypothetically returns 10% per year, the difference between a 1% tracker fee and a 3% managed fund fee is not 2%, but 20%. If the fund returns 5% per year, it’s a 40% difference that cuts your returns *in half*.
The dirty little secret is that very few actively managed funds consistently outperform a basic tracker fund over time.
Actual costs in the modern world are much lower (assuming investing in a percentage based fee if £1k invested).
Whereas to take an example, Natwest savings account offers 1.06% on savings up to £25k, Lloyds easy saver is 1%. 4.5% is available elsewhere. The high street banks are taking three quarters of your savings return due to customer inertia.
And yet it is investment platforms are seen as charging leech fees not the savings banks. All feeds into why we don't invest enough.
I think this (interesting) debate is missing the point somewhat. Increasing the extent to which individuals invest doesn't help the UK if all the investments are in US companies - a very large proportion of my ISA is overseas despite the currency risk, for example. During COVID there was insanely high saving/investment rates in the UK but that did not spur UK growth then or since.
I don't think it's the silver bullet people suggest. There does actually need to be UK businesses to invest in, but it's pretty slim pickings.
WRT the US economy, it’s far less impressive than it’s touted to be. The US is far more a country of pettifogging bureaucracy, overtaxation (except for the super rich), absurd amounts of money wasted on a mediocre healthcare system, and grinding poverty at the bottom, than it is the land of the free and rugged entrepreneurs.
One of the big reasons it's done so well is because the average US person sticks their money into the stock market far more than we do here, where it's either cash or buying more houses - both of which are, in the round, non or low producing assets; whereas in the US the big companies have so much implied capital they can just buy anything halfway promising elsewhere in the world.
Stocks appear to be another thing people look at and say 'You made money in the markets? Then we should have taxed you more!'. Look at the perma-onanism around the idea of a financial transaction tax.
Most people don’t understand stocks, and see such investments as gambling. Whereas, if you spread your risk, it’s as safe as depositing money in a building society, with a far better rate of return.
No it isn't.
Even a widely diversified holding is exposed to various risks that cash saving isn't. A general fall in markets will affect a widely-diversified holding as it will a concentrated holding. Cash doesn't have the capital risk that investment does.
My old boss and mentor used to say 'share money is spare money'.
Depends on perceptions and timescales. In the short term a savings account is safer than a global tracker, in the long term it is a guarantee of loss.
Only if your savings rate is below your personal rate of inflation. Negative real interest rates is a comparatively new phenomenon. Most people cannot afford to lose any capital, and those chasing leech fees, aka commission, have an incentive to over-invest clients. And they do.
I suspect financial institutions make far bigger margins/leech fees on savings accounts than investment accounts.
If you don't move your savings accounts at least once a year, banks and building societies all take advantage.
The problem is a misunderstanding of the way management fees are presented.
So if a fund hypothetically returns 10% per year, the difference between a 1% tracker fee and a 3% managed fund fee is not 2%, but 20%. If the fund returns 5% per year, it’s a 40% difference that cuts your returns *in half*.
The dirty little secret is that very few actively managed funds consistently outperform a basic tracker fund over time.
Actual costs in the modern world are much lower (assuming investing in a percentage based fee if £1k invested).
Whereas to take an example, Natwest savings account offers 1.06% on savings up to £25k, Lloyds easy saver is 1%. 4.5% is available elsewhere. The high street banks are taking three quarters of your savings return due to customer inertia.
And yet it is investment platforms are seen as charging leech fees not the savings banks. All feeds into why we don't invest enough.
I think this (interesting) debate is missing the point somewhat. Increasing the extent to which individuals invest doesn't help the UK if all the investments are in US companies - a very large proportion of my ISA is overseas despite the currency risk, for example. During COVID there was insanely high savings rates in the UK but that did not spur UK growth then or since.
I don't think it's the silver bullet people suggest.
Makes no difference whether you invest in overseas shares or UK shares. You are buying in a second hand market.
There is a misconception that if you, for example, buy £x worth of shares in ABC plc then £x goes to ABC plc. It doesn't, it goes to the seller/s of the shares you are buying.
I'm pretty sure Reeves doesn't understand this given the stuff she comes out with.
One of Starmer's own advisers in opposition has said ID cards won't happen.
"Digital IDs ‘dead in the water in six months’ as opposition mounts
Peter Hyman, who advised Sir Keir Starmer in opposition, has told the Labour Party conference the party has failed to challenge conspiracy theories" (£)
WRT the US economy, it’s far less impressive than it’s touted to be. The US is far more a country of pettifogging bureaucracy, overtaxation (except for the super rich), absurd amounts of money wasted on a mediocre healthcare system, and grinding poverty at the bottom, than it is the land of the free and rugged entrepreneurs.
One of the big reasons it's done so well is because the average US person sticks their money into the stock market far more than we do here, where it's either cash or buying more houses - both of which are, in the round, non or low producing assets; whereas in the US the big companies have so much implied capital they can just buy anything halfway promising elsewhere in the world.
Stocks appear to be another thing people look at and say 'You made money in the markets? Then we should have taxed you more!'. Look at the perma-onanism around the idea of a financial transaction tax.
Most people don’t understand stocks, and see such investments as gambling. Whereas, if you spread your risk, it’s as safe as depositing money in a building society, with a far better rate of return.
No it isn't.
Even a widely diversified holding is exposed to various risks that cash saving isn't. A general fall in markets will affect a widely-diversified holding as it will a concentrated holding. Cash doesn't have the capital risk that investment does.
My old boss and mentor used to say 'share money is spare money'.
Depends on perceptions and timescales. In the short term a savings account is safer than a global tracker, in the long term it is a guarantee of loss.
Only if your savings rate is below your personal rate of inflation. Negative real interest rates is a comparatively new phenomenon. Most people cannot afford to lose any capital, and those chasing leech fees, aka commission, have an incentive to over-invest clients. And they do.
I suspect financial institutions make far bigger margins/leech fees on savings accounts than investment accounts.
If you don't move your savings accounts at least once a year, banks and building societies all take advantage.
The problem is a misunderstanding of the way management fees are presented.
So if a fund hypothetically returns 10% per year, the difference between a 1% tracker fee and a 3% managed fund fee is not 2%, but 20%. If the fund returns 5% per year, it’s a 40% difference that cuts your returns *in half*.
The dirty little secret is that very few actively managed funds consistently outperform a basic tracker fund over time.
Actual costs in the modern world are much lower (assuming investing in a percentage based fee if £1k invested).
Whereas to take an example, Natwest savings account offers 1.06% on savings up to £25k, Lloyds easy saver is 1%. 4.5% is available elsewhere. The high street banks are taking three quarters of your savings return due to customer inertia.
And yet it is investment platforms are seen as charging leech fees not the savings banks. All feeds into why we don't invest enough.
I think this (interesting) debate is missing the point somewhat. Increasing the extent to which individuals invest doesn't help the UK if all the investments are in US companies - a very large proportion of my ISA is overseas despite the currency risk, for example. During COVID there was insanely high saving/investment rates in the UK but that did not spur UK growth then or since.
I don't think it's the silver bullet people suggest. There does actually need to be UK businesses to invest in, but it's pretty slim pickings.
A quick glance at the FTSE 250 isn't particularly inspiring. Moonpig, Raspberry Pi, Aston Martin, various property companies.
WRT the US economy, it’s far less impressive than it’s touted to be. The US is far more a country of pettifogging bureaucracy, overtaxation (except for the super rich), absurd amounts of money wasted on a mediocre healthcare system, and grinding poverty at the bottom, than it is the land of the free and rugged entrepreneurs.
One of the big reasons it's done so well is because the average US person sticks their money into the stock market far more than we do here, where it's either cash or buying more houses - both of which are, in the round, non or low producing assets; whereas in the US the big companies have so much implied capital they can just buy anything halfway promising elsewhere in the world.
Stocks appear to be another thing people look at and say 'You made money in the markets? Then we should have taxed you more!'. Look at the perma-onanism around the idea of a financial transaction tax.
Most people don’t understand stocks, and see such investments as gambling. Whereas, if you spread your risk, it’s as safe as depositing money in a building society, with a far better rate of return.
No it isn't.
Even a widely diversified holding is exposed to various risks that cash saving isn't. A general fall in markets will affect a widely-diversified holding as it will a concentrated holding. Cash doesn't have the capital risk that investment does.
My old boss and mentor used to say 'share money is spare money'.
Depends on perceptions and timescales. In the short term a savings account is safer than a global tracker, in the long term it is a guarantee of loss.
Only if your savings rate is below your personal rate of inflation. Negative real interest rates is a comparatively new phenomenon. Most people cannot afford to lose any capital, and those chasing leech fees, aka commission, have an incentive to over-invest clients. And they do.
I suspect financial institutions make far bigger margins/leech fees on savings accounts than investment accounts.
If you don't move your savings accounts at least once a year, banks and building societies all take advantage.
The problem is a misunderstanding of the way management fees are presented.
So if a fund hypothetically returns 10% per year, the difference between a 1% tracker fee and a 3% managed fund fee is not 2%, but 20%. If the fund returns 5% per year, it’s a 40% difference that cuts your returns *in half*.
The dirty little secret is that very few actively managed funds consistently outperform a basic tracker fund over time.
Actual costs in the modern world are much lower (assuming investing in a percentage based fee if £1k invested).
Whereas to take an example, Natwest savings account offers 1.06% on savings up to £25k, Lloyds easy saver is 1%. 4.5% is available elsewhere. The high street banks are taking three quarters of your savings return due to customer inertia.
And yet it is investment platforms are seen as charging leech fees not the savings banks. All feeds into why we don't invest enough.
I think this (interesting) debate is missing the point somewhat. Increasing the extent to which individuals invest doesn't help the UK if all the investments are in US companies - a very large proportion of my ISA is overseas despite the currency risk, for example. During COVID there was insanely high saving/investment rates in the UK but that did not spur UK growth then or since.
I don't think it's the silver bullet people suggest. There does actually need to be UK businesses to invest in, but it's pretty slim pickings.
People invest where they expect returns. A low cost global tracker does me although my SIPPs now have mixed funds too.
WRT the US economy, it’s far less impressive than it’s touted to be. The US is far more a country of pettifogging bureaucracy, overtaxation (except for the super rich), absurd amounts of money wasted on a mediocre healthcare system, and grinding poverty at the bottom, than it is the land of the free and rugged entrepreneurs.
One of the big reasons it's done so well is because the average US person sticks their money into the stock market far more than we do here, where it's either cash or buying more houses - both of which are, in the round, non or low producing assets; whereas in the US the big companies have so much implied capital they can just buy anything halfway promising elsewhere in the world.
Stocks appear to be another thing people look at and say 'You made money in the markets? Then we should have taxed you more!'. Look at the perma-onanism around the idea of a financial transaction tax.
Most people don’t understand stocks, and see such investments as gambling. Whereas, if you spread your risk, it’s as safe as depositing money in a building society, with a far better rate of return.
No it isn't.
Even a widely diversified holding is exposed to various risks that cash saving isn't. A general fall in markets will affect a widely-diversified holding as it will a concentrated holding. Cash doesn't have the capital risk that investment does.
My old boss and mentor used to say 'share money is spare money'.
Depends on perceptions and timescales. In the short term a savings account is safer than a global tracker, in the long term it is a guarantee of loss.
Only if your savings rate is below your personal rate of inflation. Negative real interest rates is a comparatively new phenomenon. Most people cannot afford to lose any capital, and those chasing leech fees, aka commission, have an incentive to over-invest clients. And they do.
I suspect financial institutions make far bigger margins/leech fees on savings accounts than investment accounts.
If you don't move your savings accounts at least once a year, banks and building societies all take advantage.
The problem is a misunderstanding of the way management fees are presented.
So if a fund hypothetically returns 10% per year, the difference between a 1% tracker fee and a 3% managed fund fee is not 2%, but 20%. If the fund returns 5% per year, it’s a 40% difference that cuts your returns *in half*.
The dirty little secret is that very few actively managed funds consistently outperform a basic tracker fund over time.
Actual costs in the modern world are much lower (assuming investing in a percentage based fee if £1k invested).
Whereas to take an example, Natwest savings account offers 1.06% on savings up to £25k, Lloyds easy saver is 1%. 4.5% is available elsewhere. The high street banks are taking three quarters of your savings return due to customer inertia.
And yet it is investment platforms are seen as charging leech fees not the savings banks. All feeds into why we don't invest enough.
What you are doing in comparing the very worst cash investors (those who succumb to customer inertia which I agree is a problem) with the most keenly priced investment option (non-advised investment platforms).
I'm talking generally about cash deposits versus stock market investing and the comparative risk this entails.
Comparing advised investing with 100% perfect Cash ISA switchers would be equally disingenuous in the other direction.
WRT the US economy, it’s far less impressive than it’s touted to be. The US is far more a country of pettifogging bureaucracy, overtaxation (except for the super rich), absurd amounts of money wasted on a mediocre healthcare system, and grinding poverty at the bottom, than it is the land of the free and rugged entrepreneurs.
One of the big reasons it's done so well is because the average US person sticks their money into the stock market far more than we do here, where it's either cash or buying more houses - both of which are, in the round, non or low producing assets; whereas in the US the big companies have so much implied capital they can just buy anything halfway promising elsewhere in the world.
Stocks appear to be another thing people look at and say 'You made money in the markets? Then we should have taxed you more!'. Look at the perma-onanism around the idea of a financial transaction tax.
Most people don’t understand stocks, and see such investments as gambling. Whereas, if you spread your risk, it’s as safe as depositing money in a building society, with a far better rate of return.
No it isn't.
Even a widely diversified holding is exposed to various risks that cash saving isn't. A general fall in markets will affect a widely-diversified holding as it will a concentrated holding. Cash doesn't have the capital risk that investment does.
My old boss and mentor used to say 'share money is spare money'.
Depends on perceptions and timescales. In the short term a savings account is safer than a global tracker, in the long term it is a guarantee of loss.
Only if your savings rate is below your personal rate of inflation. Negative real interest rates is a comparatively new phenomenon. Most people cannot afford to lose any capital, and those chasing leech fees, aka commission, have an incentive to over-invest clients. And they do.
I suspect financial institutions make far bigger margins/leech fees on savings accounts than investment accounts.
If you don't move your savings accounts at least once a year, banks and building societies all take advantage.
The problem is a misunderstanding of the way management fees are presented.
So if a fund hypothetically returns 10% per year, the difference between a 1% tracker fee and a 3% managed fund fee is not 2%, but 20%. If the fund returns 5% per year, it’s a 40% difference that cuts your returns *in half*.
The dirty little secret is that very few actively managed funds consistently outperform a basic tracker fund over time.
Actual costs in the modern world are much lower (assuming investing in a percentage based fee if £1k invested).
Whereas to take an example, Natwest savings account offers 1.06% on savings up to £25k, Lloyds easy saver is 1%. 4.5% is available elsewhere. The high street banks are taking three quarters of your savings return due to customer inertia.
And yet it is investment platforms are seen as charging leech fees not the savings banks. All feeds into why we don't invest enough.
I think this (interesting) debate is missing the point somewhat. Increasing the extent to which individuals invest doesn't help the UK if all the investments are in US companies - a very large proportion of my ISA is overseas despite the currency risk, for example. During COVID there was insanely high savings rates in the UK but that did not spur UK growth then or since.
I don't think it's the silver bullet people suggest.
Makes no difference whether you invest in overseas shares or UK shares. You are buying in a second hand market.
There is a misconception that if you, for example, buy £x worth of shares in ABC plc then £x goes to ABC plc. It doesn't, it goes to the seller/s of the shares you are buying.
I'm pretty sure Reeves doesn't understand this given the stuff she comes out with.
It's still providing capital to that business though, regardless of the underlying complicated mechanics of the actual transactions. If those sellers didn't have buyers then the cash available to the business dries up. And we primarily provide that cash to businesses not in the UK.
An interesting question is: which is better for the UK economy: 1) investing in S&S ISA (global all cap) 2) Spending your cash in the UK on goods and services provided by local businesses
I have arrived in Naples, Italy, after my arduous flight from Gatwick. I’m settled in a glamorous apartment in the Quattro Spagnoli, the old romantic Spanish quarters where Vespas fizz over the cobbles and the laundry hangs like flags of endless Italian surrender
I’ve got my AirPods3 in their shiny new pod. I’m ready to do my grand even futuristic experiment: do they really work as Babelfish? Does the translate function truly allow you to move smoothly through foreign languages, understanding everything, instantly?
Only problem: I’ve just discovered that Apple doesn’t offer instant Italian translation, yet. And you aren’t allowed to use these things in the EU, by law, so you can’t download the software
Situation excellent: avanti!
Should have invited my granddaughter along, as she is fluent in Italian and spent a year at Turin University !!!!
Not sure you’ve entirely grasped the purpose of my experiment
Do the AirPods translate what you say too? Or how does that side of the conversation go? Presumably because you are English, if the Italians don't understand you just shout louder until they do?
Nope. Which is a major drawback. The other person has to be wearing them as well
I’ve found some Spanish people and tried it and the translation is laggy and glitchy - but it works. So you can see that eventually - 2 years? - this tech will be transformative
The chat with an Ai expert last week said what I think you have said AI is as bad now as it will ever be - it will only improve. I'm setting a literature review this morning for 3rd year students. I will be explicitly telling them to use AI and reflect on its use. Eventually assessment will need to go back to the old style viva voce.
That is one thing I have them found bad, using AI for "literature review", both from these dedicated start-ups and general LLMs. Which is quite surprising given there is google scholar, arxiv, which collate all this infomration.
Yes. In preparation for setting the task I had a go myself with Copilot (probably not the best, but thats the official one for the Uni). Despite carefully tailoring prompts etc its still around 45%. I asked for 3000 words and it returned about 800 of vagueness.
One of my colleagues is enamoured of using it as a search engine, as it is perhaps better at finding the articles you want than say Web of Science (my go to) or Embase, Pubmed. Those can tend to throw up a lot of references, depending on how you search.
I have arrived in Naples, Italy, after my arduous flight from Gatwick. I’m settled in a glamorous apartment in the Quattro Spagnoli, the old romantic Spanish quarters where Vespas fizz over the cobbles and the laundry hangs like flags of endless Italian surrender
I’ve got my AirPods3 in their shiny new pod. I’m ready to do my grand even futuristic experiment: do they really work as Babelfish? Does the translate function truly allow you to move smoothly through foreign languages, understanding everything, instantly?
Only problem: I’ve just discovered that Apple doesn’t offer instant Italian translation, yet. And you aren’t allowed to use these things in the EU, by law, so you can’t download the software
Situation excellent: avanti!
I don't believe you can use third party translation apps either.
I don’t know if it’s the EU law actually blocking my download or not - I do know these Babelfish AirPods aren’t legally functional in the EU (yes, they’re a Brexit benefit)
Anyway I just used a vpn routed via the UK and it’s worked. Just tested them now. It actually works
Now I’m heading out into Naples, Italy, to find people who speak Spanish, German or French
Obviously the Union of European Translators did enough lobbying against Big Nasty American Technology, on one of their monthly trips between Brussels and Strasbourg.
This is becoming a real issue for the EU. It is regulating new tech into oblivion, guaranteeing the EU falls critically behind at a crucial stage. Like a government outlawing steam power in 1836
No doubt Labour is desperate for Britain to copy Brussels
It's the first absolute clear-as-day Brexit bonus: our AI regulation can be different to EU's precautionary principle stuff.
Absolutely, and it’s the sort of thing the government should be all over, massive opportunities to get ahead in a rapidly-developing, potentially game-changing new technology.
Instead they appear determined to copy the EU approach.
The only getting ahead with AI is control of the models as they approach AGI. Use of AI to do a little bit of translation is just fiddling while Rome burns. We control none and Brexit or no Brexit it makes no difference.
There’s an awful lot of EU citizens on social media who disagree with you, vehemently
Yeah but that’s just consumerism. It’s a bonus from a consumer perspective, sure. But the real value in AI is the models themselves and that’s where the wealth will be created.
If I was allowed to talk about this I could tell you all so much more. But I’m not. I could assist @turbotubbs and tell him where he’s going wrong. But I can’t. Hey Ho
Or “ggglem lech mm nyoo” as my AirPods have just put it, translating from German (I forgot to toggle the language)
It doesn't detect the language?
No. You have to switch between languages manually. I’m sure they can fix this soon. On the upside the translate app also transcribes the whole conversation by both sides - highly useful
It all feels very beta TBH - indeed I think Apple admit that. However you can ALSO sense the enormous potential. It’s a bit like using early forms of any amazing tech
Lots of glitches and lags. And yet when it’s impressive it’s quietly mindblowing. You actually forget you’re having a conversation in forrin via plastic in your ears
I just met a German student and we had an absorbing conversation which got down to the finer points of Rilke (I pre warned him I was testing these pods, otherwise I’d have looked insanely rude and quite odd)
One of Starmer's own advisers in opposition has said ID cards won't happen.
"Digital IDs ‘dead in the water in six months’ as opposition mounts
Peter Hyman, who advised Sir Keir Starmer in opposition, has told the Labour Party conference the party has failed to challenge conspiracy theories" (£)
WRT the US economy, it’s far less impressive than it’s touted to be. The US is far more a country of pettifogging bureaucracy, overtaxation (except for the super rich), absurd amounts of money wasted on a mediocre healthcare system, and grinding poverty at the bottom, than it is the land of the free and rugged entrepreneurs.
One of the big reasons it's done so well is because the average US person sticks their money into the stock market far more than we do here, where it's either cash or buying more houses - both of which are, in the round, non or low producing assets; whereas in the US the big companies have so much implied capital they can just buy anything halfway promising elsewhere in the world.
Stocks appear to be another thing people look at and say 'You made money in the markets? Then we should have taxed you more!'. Look at the perma-onanism around the idea of a financial transaction tax.
Most people don’t understand stocks, and see such investments as gambling. Whereas, if you spread your risk, it’s as safe as depositing money in a building society, with a far better rate of return.
No it isn't.
Even a widely diversified holding is exposed to various risks that cash saving isn't. A general fall in markets will affect a widely-diversified holding as it will a concentrated holding. Cash doesn't have the capital risk that investment does.
My old boss and mentor used to say 'share money is spare money'.
Depends on perceptions and timescales. In the short term a savings account is safer than a global tracker, in the long term it is a guarantee of loss.
Only if your savings rate is below your personal rate of inflation. Negative real interest rates is a comparatively new phenomenon. Most people cannot afford to lose any capital, and those chasing leech fees, aka commission, have an incentive to over-invest clients. And they do.
I suspect financial institutions make far bigger margins/leech fees on savings accounts than investment accounts.
If you don't move your savings accounts at least once a year, banks and building societies all take advantage.
The problem is a misunderstanding of the way management fees are presented.
So if a fund hypothetically returns 10% per year, the difference between a 1% tracker fee and a 3% managed fund fee is not 2%, but 20%. If the fund returns 5% per year, it’s a 40% difference that cuts your returns *in half*.
The dirty little secret is that very few actively managed funds consistently outperform a basic tracker fund over time.
Actual costs in the modern world are much lower (assuming investing in a percentage based fee if £1k invested).
Whereas to take an example, Natwest savings account offers 1.06% on savings up to £25k, Lloyds easy saver is 1%. 4.5% is available elsewhere. The high street banks are taking three quarters of your savings return due to customer inertia.
And yet it is investment platforms are seen as charging leech fees not the savings banks. All feeds into why we don't invest enough.
I think this (interesting) debate is missing the point somewhat. Increasing the extent to which individuals invest doesn't help the UK if all the investments are in US companies - a very large proportion of my ISA is overseas despite the currency risk, for example. During COVID there was insanely high savings rates in the UK but that did not spur UK growth then or since.
I don't think it's the silver bullet people suggest.
Makes no difference whether you invest in overseas shares or UK shares. You are buying in a second hand market.
There is a misconception that if you, for example, buy £x worth of shares in ABC plc then £x goes to ABC plc. It doesn't, it goes to the seller/s of the shares you are buying.
I'm pretty sure Reeves doesn't understand this given the stuff she comes out with.
It's still providing capital to that business though, regardless of the underlying complicated mechanics of the actual transactions. If those sellers didn't have buyers then the cash available to the business dries up. And we primarily provide that cash to businesses not in the UK.
An interesting question is: which is better for the UK economy: 1) investing in S&S ISA (global all cap) 2) Spending your cash in the UK on goods and services provided by local businesses
A question for an economist but I would introduce a third option and go with: 1) Spending your cash in the UK, 2) depositing it in a bank (so it can be lent to people and businesses) 3) investing in S&S ISA
WRT the US economy, it’s far less impressive than it’s touted to be. The US is far more a country of pettifogging bureaucracy, overtaxation (except for the super rich), absurd amounts of money wasted on a mediocre healthcare system, and grinding poverty at the bottom, than it is the land of the free and rugged entrepreneurs.
One of the big reasons it's done so well is because the average US person sticks their money into the stock market far more than we do here, where it's either cash or buying more houses - both of which are, in the round, non or low producing assets; whereas in the US the big companies have so much implied capital they can just buy anything halfway promising elsewhere in the world.
Stocks appear to be another thing people look at and say 'You made money in the markets? Then we should have taxed you more!'. Look at the perma-onanism around the idea of a financial transaction tax.
Most people don’t understand stocks, and see such investments as gambling. Whereas, if you spread your risk, it’s as safe as depositing money in a building society, with a far better rate of return.
No it isn't.
Even a widely diversified holding is exposed to various risks that cash saving isn't. A general fall in markets will affect a widely-diversified holding as it will a concentrated holding. Cash doesn't have the capital risk that investment does.
My old boss and mentor used to say 'share money is spare money'.
Depends on perceptions and timescales. In the short term a savings account is safer than a global tracker, in the long term it is a guarantee of loss.
Only if your savings rate is below your personal rate of inflation. Negative real interest rates is a comparatively new phenomenon. Most people cannot afford to lose any capital, and those chasing leech fees, aka commission, have an incentive to over-invest clients. And they do.
I suspect financial institutions make far bigger margins/leech fees on savings accounts than investment accounts.
If you don't move your savings accounts at least once a year, banks and building societies all take advantage.
The problem is a misunderstanding of the way management fees are presented.
So if a fund hypothetically returns 10% per year, the difference between a 1% tracker fee and a 3% managed fund fee is not 2%, but 20%. If the fund returns 5% per year, it’s a 40% difference that cuts your returns *in half*.
The dirty little secret is that very few actively managed funds consistently outperform a basic tracker fund over time.
Actual costs in the modern world are much lower (assuming investing in a percentage based fee if £1k invested).
Whereas to take an example, Natwest savings account offers 1.06% on savings up to £25k, Lloyds easy saver is 1%. 4.5% is available elsewhere. The high street banks are taking three quarters of your savings return due to customer inertia.
And yet it is investment platforms are seen as charging leech fees not the savings banks. All feeds into why we don't invest enough.
What you are doing in comparing the very worst cash investors (those who succumb to customer inertia which I agree is a problem) with the most keenly priced investment option (non-advised investment platforms).
I'm talking generally about cash deposits versus stock market investing and the comparative risk this entails.
Comparing advised investing with 100% perfect Cash ISA switchers would be equally disingenuous in the other direction.
When I invest in a global tracker, I am comfortable reviewing pricing every 5 years or so, as the fees are generally fair and stable.
When I invest in a savings account, I feel the need to review rates every 6-12 months as the fees are exploitative and unstable.
WRT the US economy, it’s far less impressive than it’s touted to be. The US is far more a country of pettifogging bureaucracy, overtaxation (except for the super rich), absurd amounts of money wasted on a mediocre healthcare system, and grinding poverty at the bottom, than it is the land of the free and rugged entrepreneurs.
One of the big reasons it's done so well is because the average US person sticks their money into the stock market far more than we do here, where it's either cash or buying more houses - both of which are, in the round, non or low producing assets; whereas in the US the big companies have so much implied capital they can just buy anything halfway promising elsewhere in the world.
Stocks appear to be another thing people look at and say 'You made money in the markets? Then we should have taxed you more!'. Look at the perma-onanism around the idea of a financial transaction tax.
Most people don’t understand stocks, and see such investments as gambling. Whereas, if you spread your risk, it’s as safe as depositing money in a building society, with a far better rate of return.
No it isn't.
Even a widely diversified holding is exposed to various risks that cash saving isn't. A general fall in markets will affect a widely-diversified holding as it will a concentrated holding. Cash doesn't have the capital risk that investment does.
My old boss and mentor used to say 'share money is spare money'.
Depends on perceptions and timescales. In the short term a savings account is safer than a global tracker, in the long term it is a guarantee of loss.
Only if your savings rate is below your personal rate of inflation. Negative real interest rates is a comparatively new phenomenon. Most people cannot afford to lose any capital, and those chasing leech fees, aka commission, have an incentive to over-invest clients. And they do.
I suspect financial institutions make far bigger margins/leech fees on savings accounts than investment accounts.
If you don't move your savings accounts at least once a year, banks and building societies all take advantage.
The problem is a misunderstanding of the way management fees are presented.
So if a fund hypothetically returns 10% per year, the difference between a 1% tracker fee and a 3% managed fund fee is not 2%, but 20%. If the fund returns 5% per year, it’s a 40% difference that cuts your returns *in half*.
The dirty little secret is that very few actively managed funds consistently outperform a basic tracker fund over time.
Actual costs in the modern world are much lower (assuming investing in a percentage based fee if £1k invested).
Whereas to take an example, Natwest savings account offers 1.06% on savings up to £25k, Lloyds easy saver is 1%. 4.5% is available elsewhere. The high street banks are taking three quarters of your savings return due to customer inertia.
And yet it is investment platforms are seen as charging leech fees not the savings banks. All feeds into why we don't invest enough.
I think this (interesting) debate is missing the point somewhat. Increasing the extent to which individuals invest doesn't help the UK if all the investments are in US companies - a very large proportion of my ISA is overseas despite the currency risk, for example. During COVID there was insanely high savings rates in the UK but that did not spur UK growth then or since.
I don't think it's the silver bullet people suggest.
Makes no difference whether you invest in overseas shares or UK shares. You are buying in a second hand market.
There is a misconception that if you, for example, buy £x worth of shares in ABC plc then £x goes to ABC plc. It doesn't, it goes to the seller/s of the shares you are buying.
I'm pretty sure Reeves doesn't understand this given the stuff she comes out with.
It's still providing capital to that business though, regardless of the underlying complicated mechanics of the actual transactions. If those sellers didn't have buyers then the cash available to the business dries up. And we primarily provide that cash to businesses not in the UK.
An interesting question is: which is better for the UK economy: 1) investing in S&S ISA (global all cap) 2) Spending your cash in the UK on goods and services provided by local businesses
Both
Investing in a S&S ISA, and SIPP, helps people provide for retirement and means the govt won’t have to give them additional pension top ups.
WRT the US economy, it’s far less impressive than it’s touted to be. The US is far more a country of pettifogging bureaucracy, overtaxation (except for the super rich), absurd amounts of money wasted on a mediocre healthcare system, and grinding poverty at the bottom, than it is the land of the free and rugged entrepreneurs.
One of the big reasons it's done so well is because the average US person sticks their money into the stock market far more than we do here, where it's either cash or buying more houses - both of which are, in the round, non or low producing assets; whereas in the US the big companies have so much implied capital they can just buy anything halfway promising elsewhere in the world.
Stocks appear to be another thing people look at and say 'You made money in the markets? Then we should have taxed you more!'. Look at the perma-onanism around the idea of a financial transaction tax.
Most people don’t understand stocks, and see such investments as gambling. Whereas, if you spread your risk, it’s as safe as depositing money in a building society, with a far better rate of return.
No it isn't.
Even a widely diversified holding is exposed to various risks that cash saving isn't. A general fall in markets will affect a widely-diversified holding as it will a concentrated holding. Cash doesn't have the capital risk that investment does.
My old boss and mentor used to say 'share money is spare money'.
Depends on perceptions and timescales. In the short term a savings account is safer than a global tracker, in the long term it is a guarantee of loss.
Only if your savings rate is below your personal rate of inflation. Negative real interest rates is a comparatively new phenomenon. Most people cannot afford to lose any capital, and those chasing leech fees, aka commission, have an incentive to over-invest clients. And they do.
I suspect financial institutions make far bigger margins/leech fees on savings accounts than investment accounts.
If you don't move your savings accounts at least once a year, banks and building societies all take advantage.
The problem is a misunderstanding of the way management fees are presented.
So if a fund hypothetically returns 10% per year, the difference between a 1% tracker fee and a 3% managed fund fee is not 2%, but 20%. If the fund returns 5% per year, it’s a 40% difference that cuts your returns *in half*.
The dirty little secret is that very few actively managed funds consistently outperform a basic tracker fund over time.
Actual costs in the modern world are much lower (assuming investing in a percentage based fee if £1k invested).
Whereas to take an example, Natwest savings account offers 1.06% on savings up to £25k, Lloyds easy saver is 1%. 4.5% is available elsewhere. The high street banks are taking three quarters of your savings return due to customer inertia.
And yet it is investment platforms are seen as charging leech fees not the savings banks. All feeds into why we don't invest enough.
What you are doing in comparing the very worst cash investors (those who succumb to customer inertia which I agree is a problem) with the most keenly priced investment option (non-advised investment platforms).
I'm talking generally about cash deposits versus stock market investing and the comparative risk this entails.
Comparing advised investing with 100% perfect Cash ISA switchers would be equally disingenuous in the other direction.
When I invest in a global tracker, I am comfortable reviewing pricing every 5 years or so, as the fees are generally fair and stable.
When I invest in a savings account, I feel the need to review rates every 6-12 months as the fees are exploitative and unstable.
I don't think my comparison is disingenuous.
Unless taking a fixed rate I accept your point, but there is a danger in getting caught up in the weeds. The original post I recoiled at was Sean's who said "if you spread your risk, it’s as safe as depositing money in a building society" which is false.
"Digital ID compounds smartphone dystopia Just as the world is understanding how damaging they are for our brains and souls, this plan makes them compulsory" (£)
WRT the US economy, it’s far less impressive than it’s touted to be. The US is far more a country of pettifogging bureaucracy, overtaxation (except for the super rich), absurd amounts of money wasted on a mediocre healthcare system, and grinding poverty at the bottom, than it is the land of the free and rugged entrepreneurs.
One of the big reasons it's done so well is because the average US person sticks their money into the stock market far more than we do here, where it's either cash or buying more houses - both of which are, in the round, non or low producing assets; whereas in the US the big companies have so much implied capital they can just buy anything halfway promising elsewhere in the world.
Stocks appear to be another thing people look at and say 'You made money in the markets? Then we should have taxed you more!'. Look at the perma-onanism around the idea of a financial transaction tax.
Most people don’t understand stocks, and see such investments as gambling. Whereas, if you spread your risk, it’s as safe as depositing money in a building society, with a far better rate of return.
No it isn't.
Even a widely diversified holding is exposed to various risks that cash saving isn't. A general fall in markets will affect a widely-diversified holding as it will a concentrated holding. Cash doesn't have the capital risk that investment does.
My old boss and mentor used to say 'share money is spare money'.
Depends on perceptions and timescales. In the short term a savings account is safer than a global tracker, in the long term it is a guarantee of loss.
Only if your savings rate is below your personal rate of inflation. Negative real interest rates is a comparatively new phenomenon. Most people cannot afford to lose any capital, and those chasing leech fees, aka commission, have an incentive to over-invest clients. And they do.
I suspect financial institutions make far bigger margins/leech fees on savings accounts than investment accounts.
If you don't move your savings accounts at least once a year, banks and building societies all take advantage.
The problem is a misunderstanding of the way management fees are presented.
So if a fund hypothetically returns 10% per year, the difference between a 1% tracker fee and a 3% managed fund fee is not 2%, but 20%. If the fund returns 5% per year, it’s a 40% difference that cuts your returns *in half*.
The dirty little secret is that very few actively managed funds consistently outperform a basic tracker fund over time.
Actual costs in the modern world are much lower (assuming investing in a percentage based fee if £1k invested).
Whereas to take an example, Natwest savings account offers 1.06% on savings up to £25k, Lloyds easy saver is 1%. 4.5% is available elsewhere. The high street banks are taking three quarters of your savings return due to customer inertia.
And yet it is investment platforms are seen as charging leech fees not the savings banks. All feeds into why we don't invest enough.
What you are doing in comparing the very worst cash investors (those who succumb to customer inertia which I agree is a problem) with the most keenly priced investment option (non-advised investment platforms).
I'm talking generally about cash deposits versus stock market investing and the comparative risk this entails.
Comparing advised investing with 100% perfect Cash ISA switchers would be equally disingenuous in the other direction.
When I invest in a global tracker, I am comfortable reviewing pricing every 5 years or so, as the fees are generally fair and stable.
When I invest in a savings account, I feel the need to review rates every 6-12 months as the fees are exploitative and unstable.
I don't think my comparison is disingenuous.
Unless taking a fixed rate I accept your point, but there is a danger in getting caught up in the weeds. The original post I recoiled at was Sean's who said "if you spread your risk, it’s as safe as depositing money in a building society" which is false.
In practical terms I don't think that statement is false in the long term. In the short term it is, and technically in the long term too, but as advice for the long term it is fine.
WRT the US economy, it’s far less impressive than it’s touted to be. The US is far more a country of pettifogging bureaucracy, overtaxation (except for the super rich), absurd amounts of money wasted on a mediocre healthcare system, and grinding poverty at the bottom, than it is the land of the free and rugged entrepreneurs.
One of the big reasons it's done so well is because the average US person sticks their money into the stock market far more than we do here, where it's either cash or buying more houses - both of which are, in the round, non or low producing assets; whereas in the US the big companies have so much implied capital they can just buy anything halfway promising elsewhere in the world.
Stocks appear to be another thing people look at and say 'You made money in the markets? Then we should have taxed you more!'. Look at the perma-onanism around the idea of a financial transaction tax.
Most people don’t understand stocks, and see such investments as gambling. Whereas, if you spread your risk, it’s as safe as depositing money in a building society, with a far better rate of return.
No it isn't.
Even a widely diversified holding is exposed to various risks that cash saving isn't. A general fall in markets will affect a widely-diversified holding as it will a concentrated holding. Cash doesn't have the capital risk that investment does.
My old boss and mentor used to say 'share money is spare money'.
Depends on perceptions and timescales. In the short term a savings account is safer than a global tracker, in the long term it is a guarantee of loss.
Only if your savings rate is below your personal rate of inflation. Negative real interest rates is a comparatively new phenomenon. Most people cannot afford to lose any capital, and those chasing leech fees, aka commission, have an incentive to over-invest clients. And they do.
I suspect financial institutions make far bigger margins/leech fees on savings accounts than investment accounts.
If you don't move your savings accounts at least once a year, banks and building societies all take advantage.
The problem is a misunderstanding of the way management fees are presented.
So if a fund hypothetically returns 10% per year, the difference between a 1% tracker fee and a 3% managed fund fee is not 2%, but 20%. If the fund returns 5% per year, it’s a 40% difference that cuts your returns *in half*.
The dirty little secret is that very few actively managed funds consistently outperform a basic tracker fund over time.
Actual costs in the modern world are much lower (assuming investing in a percentage based fee if £1k invested).
Whereas to take an example, Natwest savings account offers 1.06% on savings up to £25k, Lloyds easy saver is 1%. 4.5% is available elsewhere. The high street banks are taking three quarters of your savings return due to customer inertia.
And yet it is investment platforms are seen as charging leech fees not the savings banks. All feeds into why we don't invest enough.
What you are doing in comparing the very worst cash investors (those who succumb to customer inertia which I agree is a problem) with the most keenly priced investment option (non-advised investment platforms).
I'm talking generally about cash deposits versus stock market investing and the comparative risk this entails.
Comparing advised investing with 100% perfect Cash ISA switchers would be equally disingenuous in the other direction.
When we sold my mother's flat in the spring, I had a large lump sum to invest, and you're right that the savings element of it - inevitably the largest part since the care home bills mean most of it will be needed in the short a d medium term - involves more work, as fixed rate deals mature and interest rates change, I spend a lot of time on money saving expert and the like. Whereas the minority part I put into equities is much less work - just a scan every so often and a tweak if something isn't working out or a better idea comes along. Needless to say, this summer has been such a good one for markets that the return from the equity part far exceeds all the fixed interest stuff, but then to have put the whole lot into equities wouldn't have been sensible given the high and rising liabilities it is having to cover
WRT the US economy, it’s far less impressive than it’s touted to be. The US is far more a country of pettifogging bureaucracy, overtaxation (except for the super rich), absurd amounts of money wasted on a mediocre healthcare system, and grinding poverty at the bottom, than it is the land of the free and rugged entrepreneurs.
One of the big reasons it's done so well is because the average US person sticks their money into the stock market far more than we do here, where it's either cash or buying more houses - both of which are, in the round, non or low producing assets; whereas in the US the big companies have so much implied capital they can just buy anything halfway promising elsewhere in the world.
Stocks appear to be another thing people look at and say 'You made money in the markets? Then we should have taxed you more!'. Look at the perma-onanism around the idea of a financial transaction tax.
Most people don’t understand stocks, and see such investments as gambling. Whereas, if you spread your risk, it’s as safe as depositing money in a building society, with a far better rate of return.
No it isn't.
Even a widely diversified holding is exposed to various risks that cash saving isn't. A general fall in markets will affect a widely-diversified holding as it will a concentrated holding. Cash doesn't have the capital risk that investment does.
My old boss and mentor used to say 'share money is spare money'.
Depends on perceptions and timescales. In the short term a savings account is safer than a global tracker, in the long term it is a guarantee of loss.
Only if your savings rate is below your personal rate of inflation. Negative real interest rates is a comparatively new phenomenon. Most people cannot afford to lose any capital, and those chasing leech fees, aka commission, have an incentive to over-invest clients. And they do.
I suspect financial institutions make far bigger margins/leech fees on savings accounts than investment accounts.
If you don't move your savings accounts at least once a year, banks and building societies all take advantage.
The problem is a misunderstanding of the way management fees are presented.
So if a fund hypothetically returns 10% per year, the difference between a 1% tracker fee and a 3% managed fund fee is not 2%, but 20%. If the fund returns 5% per year, it’s a 40% difference that cuts your returns *in half*.
The dirty little secret is that very few actively managed funds consistently outperform a basic tracker fund over time.
Actual costs in the modern world are much lower (assuming investing in a percentage based fee if £1k invested).
Whereas to take an example, Natwest savings account offers 1.06% on savings up to £25k, Lloyds easy saver is 1%. 4.5% is available elsewhere. The high street banks are taking three quarters of your savings return due to customer inertia.
And yet it is investment platforms are seen as charging leech fees not the savings banks. All feeds into why we don't invest enough.
What you are doing in comparing the very worst cash investors (those who succumb to customer inertia which I agree is a problem) with the most keenly priced investment option (non-advised investment platforms).
I'm talking generally about cash deposits versus stock market investing and the comparative risk this entails.
Comparing advised investing with 100% perfect Cash ISA switchers would be equally disingenuous in the other direction.
When we sold my mother's flat in the spring, I had a large lump sum to invest, and you're right that the savings element of it - inevitably the largest part since the care home bills mean most of it will be needed in the short a d medium term - involves more work, as fixed rate deals mature and interest rates change, I spend a lot of time on money saving expert and the like. Whereas the minority part I put into equities is much less work - just a scan every so often and a tweak if something isn't working out or a better idea comes along. Needless to say, this summer has been such a good one for markets that the return from the equity part far exceeds all the fixed interest stuff, but then to have put the whole lot into equities wouldn't have been sensible given the high and rising liabilities it is having to cover
Nice one. How did you buy the equities? Direct share purchases via an investment platform or direct funds or direct ETFs or via an adviser. The costs for each will vary significantly.
I have arrived in Naples, Italy, after my arduous flight from Gatwick. I’m settled in a glamorous apartment in the Quattro Spagnoli, the old romantic Spanish quarters where Vespas fizz over the cobbles and the laundry hangs like flags of endless Italian surrender
I’ve got my AirPods3 in their shiny new pod. I’m ready to do my grand even futuristic experiment: do they really work as Babelfish? Does the translate function truly allow you to move smoothly through foreign languages, understanding everything, instantly?
Only problem: I’ve just discovered that Apple doesn’t offer instant Italian translation, yet. And you aren’t allowed to use these things in the EU, by law, so you can’t download the software
Situation excellent: avanti!
Should have invited my granddaughter along, as she is fluent in Italian and spent a year at Turin University !!!!
I have arrived in Naples, Italy, after my arduous flight from Gatwick. I’m settled in a glamorous apartment in the Quattro Spagnoli, the old romantic Spanish quarters where Vespas fizz over the cobbles and the laundry hangs like flags of endless Italian surrender
I’ve got my AirPods3 in their shiny new pod. I’m ready to do my grand even futuristic experiment: do they really work as Babelfish? Does the translate function truly allow you to move smoothly through foreign languages, understanding everything, instantly?
Only problem: I’ve just discovered that Apple doesn’t offer instant Italian translation, yet. And you aren’t allowed to use these things in the EU, by law, so you can’t download the software
Situation excellent: avanti!
Should have invited my granddaughter along, as she is fluent in Italian and spent a year at Turin University !!!!
Not sure you’ve entirely grasped the purpose of my experiment
Do the AirPods translate what you say too? Or how does that side of the conversation go? Presumably because you are English, if the Italians don't understand you just shout louder until they do?
Nope. Which is a major drawback. The other person has to be wearing them as well
I’ve found some Spanish people and tried it and the translation is laggy and glitchy - but it works. So you can see that eventually - 2 years? - this tech will be transformative
The chat with an Ai expert last week said what I think you have said AI is as bad now as it will ever be - it will only improve. I'm setting a literature review this morning for 3rd year students. I will be explicitly telling them to use AI and reflect on its use. Eventually assessment will need to go back to the old style viva voce.
That is one thing I have them found bad, using AI for "literature review", both from these dedicated start-ups and general LLMs. Which is quite surprising given there is google scholar, arxiv, which collate all this infomration.
Yes. In preparation for setting the task I had a go myself with Copilot (probably not the best, but thats the official one for the Uni). Despite carefully tailoring prompts etc its still around 45%. I asked for 3000 words and it returned about 800 of vagueness.
One of my colleagues is enamoured of using it as a search engine, as it is perhaps better at finding the articles you want than say Web of Science (my go to) or Embase, Pubmed. Those can tend to throw up a lot of references, depending on how you search.
I have arrived in Naples, Italy, after my arduous flight from Gatwick. I’m settled in a glamorous apartment in the Quattro Spagnoli, the old romantic Spanish quarters where Vespas fizz over the cobbles and the laundry hangs like flags of endless Italian surrender
I’ve got my AirPods3 in their shiny new pod. I’m ready to do my grand even futuristic experiment: do they really work as Babelfish? Does the translate function truly allow you to move smoothly through foreign languages, understanding everything, instantly?
Only problem: I’ve just discovered that Apple doesn’t offer instant Italian translation, yet. And you aren’t allowed to use these things in the EU, by law, so you can’t download the software
Situation excellent: avanti!
I don't believe you can use third party translation apps either.
I don’t know if it’s the EU law actually blocking my download or not - I do know these Babelfish AirPods aren’t legally functional in the EU (yes, they’re a Brexit benefit)
Anyway I just used a vpn routed via the UK and it’s worked. Just tested them now. It actually works
Now I’m heading out into Naples, Italy, to find people who speak Spanish, German or French
Obviously the Union of European Translators did enough lobbying against Big Nasty American Technology, on one of their monthly trips between Brussels and Strasbourg.
This is becoming a real issue for the EU. It is regulating new tech into oblivion, guaranteeing the EU falls critically behind at a crucial stage. Like a government outlawing steam power in 1836
No doubt Labour is desperate for Britain to copy Brussels
It's the first absolute clear-as-day Brexit bonus: our AI regulation can be different to EU's precautionary principle stuff.
Absolutely, and it’s the sort of thing the government should be all over, massive opportunities to get ahead in a rapidly-developing, potentially game-changing new technology.
Instead they appear determined to copy the EU approach.
The only getting ahead with AI is control of the models as they approach AGI. Use of AI to do a little bit of translation is just fiddling while Rome burns. We control none and Brexit or no Brexit it makes no difference.
There’s an awful lot of EU citizens on social media who disagree with you, vehemently
Yeah but that’s just consumerism. It’s a bonus from a consumer perspective, sure. But the real value in AI is the models themselves and that’s where the wealth will be created.
If I was allowed to talk about this I could tell you all so much more. But I’m not. I could assist @turbotubbs and tell him where he’s going wrong. But I can’t. Hey Ho
Or “ggglem lech mm nyoo” as my AirPods have just put it, translating from German (I forgot to toggle the language)
It doesn't detect the language?
No. You have to switch between languages manually. I’m sure they can fix this soon. On the upside the translate app also transcribes the whole conversation by both sides - highly useful
It all feels very beta TBH - indeed I think Apple admit that. However you can ALSO sense the enormous potential. It’s a bit like using early forms of any amazing tech
Lots of glitches and lags. And yet when it’s impressive it’s quietly mindblowing. You actually forget you’re having a conversation in forrin via plastic in your ears
I just met a German student and we had an absorbing conversation which got down to the finer points of Rilke (I pre warned him I was testing these pods, otherwise I’d have looked insanely rude and quite odd)
BREAKING: Romanian Parliament receives from the MoD the request to buy 216 K2 Panther tanks for the military. They will be produced in Romania - Defense Romania https://x.com/AlexandruC4/status/1972937673125007387
This is the first I have seen from a senior RefUK Council figure about walking/wheeling and cycling.
This is from George Finch, who is the 19 year old leader of Warwickshire County Council:
The next motion threw up Cllr Finch’s plan to scrap active travel projects – particularly cycle lanes * – that are already funded by central government, stating “we will bounce that (money) back to the national government and they can work on other things”.
He said such works would “eventually destroy our town centres”, describing cycle lanes as “bogus”.
It was questioned whether he was serious about giving up allocated cash as it is unlikely – probably impossible – for the council to get that back for other things. http://bit.ly/471wkv8 (more at the link, which is a Stratford Herald article about a bizarre Council meeting.)
I think we'll be seeing the same in Councils like Lincs, Notts, Derbys - as RefUK's policy operation is afaics very centrally driven by dogma on such issues.
* I suspect that Councillor Finch has not got the foggiest notion what a "cycle lane" actually is, and he will come a cropper here with the Equality Act and his councils Public Sector Equality Duty.
WRT the US economy, it’s far less impressive than it’s touted to be. The US is far more a country of pettifogging bureaucracy, overtaxation (except for the super rich), absurd amounts of money wasted on a mediocre healthcare system, and grinding poverty at the bottom, than it is the land of the free and rugged entrepreneurs.
One of the big reasons it's done so well is because the average US person sticks their money into the stock market far more than we do here, where it's either cash or buying more houses - both of which are, in the round, non or low producing assets; whereas in the US the big companies have so much implied capital they can just buy anything halfway promising elsewhere in the world.
Stocks appear to be another thing people look at and say 'You made money in the markets? Then we should have taxed you more!'. Look at the perma-onanism around the idea of a financial transaction tax.
Most people don’t understand stocks, and see such investments as gambling. Whereas, if you spread your risk, it’s as safe as depositing money in a building society, with a far better rate of return.
Around the millenium the Economist had a review of the preceding century, it may even have been a special issue, and one thing they looked at was the returns of property versus equities. There was only one decade when you would have been better off in property than equities. So if you invest for the long term you are simply better off investing in a productive asset rather than a mere pile of bricks and mortar. Of course it's more nuanced than that, but I suspect that the average Brit bar their pension has little to no investment in equities, and sees their house as "their pension", Americans as a whole seem far more inclined to put their money in funds that track the stock markets, or even direct investing.
The bank isn't willing to lend you four times your salary to invest in shares.
WRT the US economy, it’s far less impressive than it’s touted to be. The US is far more a country of pettifogging bureaucracy, overtaxation (except for the super rich), absurd amounts of money wasted on a mediocre healthcare system, and grinding poverty at the bottom, than it is the land of the free and rugged entrepreneurs.
One of the big reasons it's done so well is because the average US person sticks their money into the stock market far more than we do here, where it's either cash or buying more houses - both of which are, in the round, non or low producing assets; whereas in the US the big companies have so much implied capital they can just buy anything halfway promising elsewhere in the world.
Stocks appear to be another thing people look at and say 'You made money in the markets? Then we should have taxed you more!'. Look at the perma-onanism around the idea of a financial transaction tax.
Most people don’t understand stocks, and see such investments as gambling. Whereas, if you spread your risk, it’s as safe as depositing money in a building society, with a far better rate of return.
No it isn't.
Even a widely diversified holding is exposed to various risks that cash saving isn't. A general fall in markets will affect a widely-diversified holding as it will a concentrated holding. Cash doesn't have the capital risk that investment does.
My old boss and mentor used to say 'share money is spare money'.
Depends on perceptions and timescales. In the short term a savings account is safer than a global tracker, in the long term it is a guarantee of loss.
Only if your savings rate is below your personal rate of inflation. Negative real interest rates is a comparatively new phenomenon. Most people cannot afford to lose any capital, and those chasing leech fees, aka commission, have an incentive to over-invest clients. And they do.
I suspect financial institutions make far bigger margins/leech fees on savings accounts than investment accounts.
If you don't move your savings accounts at least once a year, banks and building societies all take advantage.
The problem is a misunderstanding of the way management fees are presented.
So if a fund hypothetically returns 10% per year, the difference between a 1% tracker fee and a 3% managed fund fee is not 2%, but 20%. If the fund returns 5% per year, it’s a 40% difference that cuts your returns *in half*.
The dirty little secret is that very few actively managed funds consistently outperform a basic tracker fund over time.
Actual costs in the modern world are much lower (assuming investing in a percentage based fee if £1k invested).
Whereas to take an example, Natwest savings account offers 1.06% on savings up to £25k, Lloyds easy saver is 1%. 4.5% is available elsewhere. The high street banks are taking three quarters of your savings return due to customer inertia.
And yet it is investment platforms are seen as charging leech fees not the savings banks. All feeds into why we don't invest enough.
What you are doing in comparing the very worst cash investors (those who succumb to customer inertia which I agree is a problem) with the most keenly priced investment option (non-advised investment platforms).
I'm talking generally about cash deposits versus stock market investing and the comparative risk this entails.
Comparing advised investing with 100% perfect Cash ISA switchers would be equally disingenuous in the other direction.
When I invest in a global tracker, I am comfortable reviewing pricing every 5 years or so, as the fees are generally fair and stable.
When I invest in a savings account, I feel the need to review rates every 6-12 months as the fees are exploitative and unstable.
I don't think my comparison is disingenuous.
Unless taking a fixed rate I accept your point, but there is a danger in getting caught up in the weeds. The original post I recoiled at was Sean's who said "if you spread your risk, it’s as safe as depositing money in a building society" which is false.
There arent many ways of tapping into returns uncorrelated with the wider market, is the problem.
I remember having a meeting, as one of my former council's pension investment panel,with the guy who used to run Newton (now BNY Mellon) Real Return fund. The presentation they gave us was all about the clever ways they had of reducing risk, with currency hedging and swaps, commodities, and the like - but I'd been a shareholder in his fund, which is targeted to achieve a real return over some bond index - for years before, and I knew that when markets rose,his fund rose but not by as much, and when markets fell his fund fell, but not by as much. Presented with this observation, he didn't really have a satisfactory response.
Learning a foreign language is incredibly difficult and that's probably how it should be. There's never going to be any shortcuts. I've totally failed at learning any of them.
Learning a foreign language is incredibly difficult and that's probably how it should be. There's never going to be any shortcuts. I've totally failed at learning any of them.
No one will bother learning foreign languages. Not now. Why make all that mental effort when a bit of plastic takes away the need?
WRT the US economy, it’s far less impressive than it’s touted to be. The US is far more a country of pettifogging bureaucracy, overtaxation (except for the super rich), absurd amounts of money wasted on a mediocre healthcare system, and grinding poverty at the bottom, than it is the land of the free and rugged entrepreneurs.
One of the big reasons it's done so well is because the average US person sticks their money into the stock market far more than we do here, where it's either cash or buying more houses - both of which are, in the round, non or low producing assets; whereas in the US the big companies have so much implied capital they can just buy anything halfway promising elsewhere in the world.
Stocks appear to be another thing people look at and say 'You made money in the markets? Then we should have taxed you more!'. Look at the perma-onanism around the idea of a financial transaction tax.
Most people don’t understand stocks, and see such investments as gambling. Whereas, if you spread your risk, it’s as safe as depositing money in a building society, with a far better rate of return.
No it isn't.
Even a widely diversified holding is exposed to various risks that cash saving isn't. A general fall in markets will affect a widely-diversified holding as it will a concentrated holding. Cash doesn't have the capital risk that investment does.
My old boss and mentor used to say 'share money is spare money'.
Depends on perceptions and timescales. In the short term a savings account is safer than a global tracker, in the long term it is a guarantee of loss.
Only if your savings rate is below your personal rate of inflation. Negative real interest rates is a comparatively new phenomenon. Most people cannot afford to lose any capital, and those chasing leech fees, aka commission, have an incentive to over-invest clients. And they do.
I suspect financial institutions make far bigger margins/leech fees on savings accounts than investment accounts.
If you don't move your savings accounts at least once a year, banks and building societies all take advantage.
The problem is a misunderstanding of the way management fees are presented.
So if a fund hypothetically returns 10% per year, the difference between a 1% tracker fee and a 3% managed fund fee is not 2%, but 20%. If the fund returns 5% per year, it’s a 40% difference that cuts your returns *in half*.
The dirty little secret is that very few actively managed funds consistently outperform a basic tracker fund over time.
Actual costs in the modern world are much lower (assuming investing in a percentage based fee if £1k invested).
Whereas to take an example, Natwest savings account offers 1.06% on savings up to £25k, Lloyds easy saver is 1%. 4.5% is available elsewhere. The high street banks are taking three quarters of your savings return due to customer inertia.
And yet it is investment platforms are seen as charging leech fees not the savings banks. All feeds into why we don't invest enough.
What you are doing in comparing the very worst cash investors (those who succumb to customer inertia which I agree is a problem) with the most keenly priced investment option (non-advised investment platforms).
I'm talking generally about cash deposits versus stock market investing and the comparative risk this entails.
Comparing advised investing with 100% perfect Cash ISA switchers would be equally disingenuous in the other direction.
When I invest in a global tracker, I am comfortable reviewing pricing every 5 years or so, as the fees are generally fair and stable.
When I invest in a savings account, I feel the need to review rates every 6-12 months as the fees are exploitative and unstable.
I don't think my comparison is disingenuous.
Unless taking a fixed rate I accept your point, but there is a danger in getting caught up in the weeds. The original post I recoiled at was Sean's who said "if you spread your risk, it’s as safe as depositing money in a building society" which is false.
There arent many ways of tapping into returns uncorrelated with the wider market, is the problem.
I remember having a meeting, as one of my former council's pension investment panel,with the guy who used to run Newton (now BNY Mellon) Real Return fund. The presentation they gave us was all about the clever ways they had of reducing risk, with currency hedging and swaps, commodities, and the like - but I'd been a shareholder in his fund, which is targeted to achieve a real return over some bond index - for years before, and I knew that when markets rose,his fund rose but not by as much, and when markets fell his fund fell, but not by as much. Presented with this observation, he didn't really have a satisfactory response.
How many invest their own money in their own fund ? Not many I’ll bet
I have arrived in Naples, Italy, after my arduous flight from Gatwick. I’m settled in a glamorous apartment in the Quattro Spagnoli, the old romantic Spanish quarters where Vespas fizz over the cobbles and the laundry hangs like flags of endless Italian surrender
I’ve got my AirPods3 in their shiny new pod. I’m ready to do my grand even futuristic experiment: do they really work as Babelfish? Does the translate function truly allow you to move smoothly through foreign languages, understanding everything, instantly?
Only problem: I’ve just discovered that Apple doesn’t offer instant Italian translation, yet. And you aren’t allowed to use these things in the EU, by law, so you can’t download the software
Situation excellent: avanti!
Should have invited my granddaughter along, as she is fluent in Italian and spent a year at Turin University !!!!
Not sure you’ve entirely grasped the purpose of my experiment
Do the AirPods translate what you say too? Or how does that side of the conversation go? Presumably because you are English, if the Italians don't understand you just shout louder until they do?
Nope. Which is a major drawback. The other person has to be wearing them as well
I’ve found some Spanish people and tried it and the translation is laggy and glitchy - but it works. So you can see that eventually - 2 years? - this tech will be transformative
The chat with an Ai expert last week said what I think you have said AI is as bad now as it will ever be - it will only improve. I'm setting a literature review this morning for 3rd year students. I will be explicitly telling them to use AI and reflect on its use. Eventually assessment will need to go back to the old style viva voce.
That is one thing I have them found bad, using AI for "literature review", both from these dedicated start-ups and general LLMs. Which is quite surprising given there is google scholar, arxiv, which collate all this infomration.
Yes. In preparation for setting the task I had a go myself with Copilot (probably not the best, but thats the official one for the Uni). Despite carefully tailoring prompts etc its still around 45%. I asked for 3000 words and it returned about 800 of vagueness.
One of my colleagues is enamoured of using it as a search engine, as it is perhaps better at finding the articles you want than say Web of Science (my go to) or Embase, Pubmed. Those can tend to throw up a lot of references, depending on how you search.
I have arrived in Naples, Italy, after my arduous flight from Gatwick. I’m settled in a glamorous apartment in the Quattro Spagnoli, the old romantic Spanish quarters where Vespas fizz over the cobbles and the laundry hangs like flags of endless Italian surrender
I’ve got my AirPods3 in their shiny new pod. I’m ready to do my grand even futuristic experiment: do they really work as Babelfish? Does the translate function truly allow you to move smoothly through foreign languages, understanding everything, instantly?
Only problem: I’ve just discovered that Apple doesn’t offer instant Italian translation, yet. And you aren’t allowed to use these things in the EU, by law, so you can’t download the software
Situation excellent: avanti!
I don't believe you can use third party translation apps either.
I don’t know if it’s the EU law actually blocking my download or not - I do know these Babelfish AirPods aren’t legally functional in the EU (yes, they’re a Brexit benefit)
Anyway I just used a vpn routed via the UK and it’s worked. Just tested them now. It actually works
Now I’m heading out into Naples, Italy, to find people who speak Spanish, German or French
Obviously the Union of European Translators did enough lobbying against Big Nasty American Technology, on one of their monthly trips between Brussels and Strasbourg.
This is becoming a real issue for the EU. It is regulating new tech into oblivion, guaranteeing the EU falls critically behind at a crucial stage. Like a government outlawing steam power in 1836
No doubt Labour is desperate for Britain to copy Brussels
It's the first absolute clear-as-day Brexit bonus: our AI regulation can be different to EU's precautionary principle stuff.
Absolutely, and it’s the sort of thing the government should be all over, massive opportunities to get ahead in a rapidly-developing, potentially game-changing new technology.
Instead they appear determined to copy the EU approach.
The only getting ahead with AI is control of the models as they approach AGI. Use of AI to do a little bit of translation is just fiddling while Rome burns. We control none and Brexit or no Brexit it makes no difference.
There’s an awful lot of EU citizens on social media who disagree with you, vehemently
Yeah but that’s just consumerism. It’s a bonus from a consumer perspective, sure. But the real value in AI is the models themselves and that’s where the wealth will be created.
If I was allowed to talk about this I could tell you all so much more. But I’m not. I could assist @turbotubbs and tell him where he’s going wrong. But I can’t. Hey Ho
Or “ggglem lech mm nyoo” as my AirPods have just put it, translating from German (I forgot to toggle the language)
It doesn't detect the language?
No. You have to switch between languages manually. I’m sure they can fix this soon. On the upside the translate app also transcribes the whole conversation by both sides - highly useful
It all feels very beta TBH - indeed I think Apple admit that. However you can ALSO sense the enormous potential. It’s a bit like using early forms of any amazing tech
Lots of glitches and lags. And yet when it’s impressive it’s quietly mindblowing. You actually forget you’re having a conversation in forrin via plastic in your ears
I just met a German student and we had an absorbing conversation which got down to the finer points of Rilke (I pre warned him I was testing these pods, otherwise I’d have looked insanely rude and quite odd)
Old Apple would never have released a product with lots of glitches and lags. But they are under huge pressure as their phone aren't special any more (Xiaomi produced a better version of the iPhone the same week), noise cancelling earbuds are two a penny and they are well behind on LLMs.
WRT the US economy, it’s far less impressive than it’s touted to be. The US is far more a country of pettifogging bureaucracy, overtaxation (except for the super rich), absurd amounts of money wasted on a mediocre healthcare system, and grinding poverty at the bottom, than it is the land of the free and rugged entrepreneurs.
One of the big reasons it's done so well is because the average US person sticks their money into the stock market far more than we do here, where it's either cash or buying more houses - both of which are, in the round, non or low producing assets; whereas in the US the big companies have so much implied capital they can just buy anything halfway promising elsewhere in the world.
Stocks appear to be another thing people look at and say 'You made money in the markets? Then we should have taxed you more!'. Look at the perma-onanism around the idea of a financial transaction tax.
Most people don’t understand stocks, and see such investments as gambling. Whereas, if you spread your risk, it’s as safe as depositing money in a building society, with a far better rate of return.
No it isn't.
Even a widely diversified holding is exposed to various risks that cash saving isn't. A general fall in markets will affect a widely-diversified holding as it will a concentrated holding. Cash doesn't have the capital risk that investment does.
My old boss and mentor used to say 'share money is spare money'.
Depends on perceptions and timescales. In the short term a savings account is safer than a global tracker, in the long term it is a guarantee of loss.
Only if your savings rate is below your personal rate of inflation. Negative real interest rates is a comparatively new phenomenon. Most people cannot afford to lose any capital, and those chasing leech fees, aka commission, have an incentive to over-invest clients. And they do.
I suspect financial institutions make far bigger margins/leech fees on savings accounts than investment accounts.
If you don't move your savings accounts at least once a year, banks and building societies all take advantage.
The problem is a misunderstanding of the way management fees are presented.
So if a fund hypothetically returns 10% per year, the difference between a 1% tracker fee and a 3% managed fund fee is not 2%, but 20%. If the fund returns 5% per year, it’s a 40% difference that cuts your returns *in half*.
The dirty little secret is that very few actively managed funds consistently outperform a basic tracker fund over time.
Actual costs in the modern world are much lower (assuming investing in a percentage based fee if £1k invested).
Whereas to take an example, Natwest savings account offers 1.06% on savings up to £25k, Lloyds easy saver is 1%. 4.5% is available elsewhere. The high street banks are taking three quarters of your savings return due to customer inertia.
And yet it is investment platforms are seen as charging leech fees not the savings banks. All feeds into why we don't invest enough.
What you are doing in comparing the very worst cash investors (those who succumb to customer inertia which I agree is a problem) with the most keenly priced investment option (non-advised investment platforms).
I'm talking generally about cash deposits versus stock market investing and the comparative risk this entails.
Comparing advised investing with 100% perfect Cash ISA switchers would be equally disingenuous in the other direction.
When we sold my mother's flat in the spring, I had a large lump sum to invest, and you're right that the savings element of it - inevitably the largest part since the care home bills mean most of it will be needed in the short a d medium term - involves more work, as fixed rate deals mature and interest rates change, I spend a lot of time on money saving expert and the like. Whereas the minority part I put into equities is much less work - just a scan every so often and a tweak if something isn't working out or a better idea comes along. Needless to say, this summer has been such a good one for markets that the return from the equity part far exceeds all the fixed interest stuff, but then to have put the whole lot into equities wouldn't have been sensible given the high and rising liabilities it is having to cover
Nice one. How did you buy the equities? Direct share purchases via an investment platform or direct funds or direct ETFs or via an adviser. The costs for each will vary significantly.
I like to think I don't need an advisor, so it was direct purchases of shares via a platform, mostly solid companies with a dividend track record or ETFs, with just a few managed funds, and a small amount put into higher risk stuff just to maintain my interest, such as a punt on a Vietnam fund just after Trump had slapped the maximum tariff on them, which so far has recovered significantly.
Forty years ago, but still catches one's throat. Easily one of the greatest political speeches in modern times. Starmer needs to find some of this heart and soul:
WRT the US economy, it’s far less impressive than it’s touted to be. The US is far more a country of pettifogging bureaucracy, overtaxation (except for the super rich), absurd amounts of money wasted on a mediocre healthcare system, and grinding poverty at the bottom, than it is the land of the free and rugged entrepreneurs.
One of the big reasons it's done so well is because the average US person sticks their money into the stock market far more than we do here, where it's either cash or buying more houses - both of which are, in the round, non or low producing assets; whereas in the US the big companies have so much implied capital they can just buy anything halfway promising elsewhere in the world.
Stocks appear to be another thing people look at and say 'You made money in the markets? Then we should have taxed you more!'. Look at the perma-onanism around the idea of a financial transaction tax.
Most people don’t understand stocks, and see such investments as gambling. Whereas, if you spread your risk, it’s as safe as depositing money in a building society, with a far better rate of return.
No it isn't.
Even a widely diversified holding is exposed to various risks that cash saving isn't. A general fall in markets will affect a widely-diversified holding as it will a concentrated holding. Cash doesn't have the capital risk that investment does.
My old boss and mentor used to say 'share money is spare money'.
Depends on perceptions and timescales. In the short term a savings account is safer than a global tracker, in the long term it is a guarantee of loss.
Only if your savings rate is below your personal rate of inflation. Negative real interest rates is a comparatively new phenomenon. Most people cannot afford to lose any capital, and those chasing leech fees, aka commission, have an incentive to over-invest clients. And they do.
I suspect financial institutions make far bigger margins/leech fees on savings accounts than investment accounts.
If you don't move your savings accounts at least once a year, banks and building societies all take advantage.
The problem is a misunderstanding of the way management fees are presented.
So if a fund hypothetically returns 10% per year, the difference between a 1% tracker fee and a 3% managed fund fee is not 2%, but 20%. If the fund returns 5% per year, it’s a 40% difference that cuts your returns *in half*.
The dirty little secret is that very few actively managed funds consistently outperform a basic tracker fund over time.
Actual costs in the modern world are much lower (assuming investing in a percentage based fee if £1k invested).
Whereas to take an example, Natwest savings account offers 1.06% on savings up to £25k, Lloyds easy saver is 1%. 4.5% is available elsewhere. The high street banks are taking three quarters of your savings return due to customer inertia.
And yet it is investment platforms are seen as charging leech fees not the savings banks. All feeds into why we don't invest enough.
What you are doing in comparing the very worst cash investors (those who succumb to customer inertia which I agree is a problem) with the most keenly priced investment option (non-advised investment platforms).
I'm talking generally about cash deposits versus stock market investing and the comparative risk this entails.
Comparing advised investing with 100% perfect Cash ISA switchers would be equally disingenuous in the other direction.
When I invest in a global tracker, I am comfortable reviewing pricing every 5 years or so, as the fees are generally fair and stable.
When I invest in a savings account, I feel the need to review rates every 6-12 months as the fees are exploitative and unstable.
I don't think my comparison is disingenuous.
Unless taking a fixed rate I accept your point, but there is a danger in getting caught up in the weeds. The original post I recoiled at was Sean's who said "if you spread your risk, it’s as safe as depositing money in a building society" which is false.
There arent many ways of tapping into returns uncorrelated with the wider market, is the problem.
I remember having a meeting, as one of my former council's pension investment panel,with the guy who used to run Newton (now BNY Mellon) Real Return fund. The presentation they gave us was all about the clever ways they had of reducing risk, with currency hedging and swaps, commodities, and the like - but I'd been a shareholder in his fund, which is targeted to achieve a real return over some bond index - for years before, and I knew that when markets rose,his fund rose but not by as much, and when markets fell his fund fell, but not by as much. Presented with this observation, he didn't really have a satisfactory response.
How many invest their own money in their own fund ? Not many I’ll bet
I think otherwise - certainly that guy did. He was actually a very interesting person to meet, quite contrarian in his approach, and the council was keen on him because during the 2008 downturn he'd held most of the fund's value and put our council into one of the top performing LG funds - but only because we hadn't lost as much as everyone else.
Learning a foreign language is incredibly difficult and that's probably how it should be. There's never going to be any shortcuts. I've totally failed at learning any of them.
No one will bother learning foreign languages. Not now. Why make all that mental effort when a bit of plastic takes away the need?
We are all going to get stupider and stupider
There will still be the need, but it will be much more specialised e.g. legal document translation. But being bilingual for general business purposes isn't going to be a major boost anymore. I remember somebody telling me how they had employed somebody who could speak something like 10 European languages to conversational level and they used them to do converse over email and phone for processing orders etc, that sort of person isn't required.
Learning a foreign language is incredibly difficult and that's probably how it should be. There's never going to be any shortcuts. I've totally failed at learning any of them.
No one will bother learning foreign languages. Not now. Why make all that mental effort when a bit of plastic takes away the need?
We are all going to get stupider and stupider
At least you cant be faulted for not giving a lead.
Learning a foreign language is incredibly difficult and that's probably how it should be. There's never going to be any shortcuts. I've totally failed at learning any of them.
No one will bother learning foreign languages. Not now. Why make all that mental effort when a bit of plastic takes away the need?
We are all going to get stupider and stupider
Interestingly (at least to me) - my eldest has just started GCSE's and specifically eschewed any Modern Languages in favour of both Latin and Ancient Greek. In his mind it's more academically interesting, and teaches you about language construction without having to bother with speaking / listening which will become redundant anyway. Not sure that'll be a common approach but potentially...
Learning a foreign language is incredibly difficult and that's probably how it should be. There's never going to be any shortcuts. I've totally failed at learning any of them.
No one will bother learning foreign languages. Not now. Why make all that mental effort when a bit of plastic takes away the need?
We are all going to get stupider and stupider
There will still be the need, but it will be much more specialised e.g. legal document translation. But being bilingual for general business purposes isn't going to be a major boost anymore. I remember somebody telling me how they had employed somebody who could speak something like 10 European languages to conversational level and they used them to do converse over email and phone for processing orders etc, that sort of person isn't required.
One wonders is the ultimate destination will just be everyone speaks English (American). Chinese is too hard to learn.
Learning a foreign language is incredibly difficult and that's probably how it should be. There's never going to be any shortcuts. I've totally failed at learning any of them.
No one will bother learning foreign languages. Not now. Why make all that mental effort when a bit of plastic takes away the need?
We are all going to get stupider and stupider
People will need to learn a foreign language in order to obtain permanent residence in the UK.
Learning a foreign language is incredibly difficult and that's probably how it should be. There's never going to be any shortcuts. I've totally failed at learning any of them.
The more you learn the easier it becomes. The UK fails to teach languages until high school, other countries often start in kindergarten. I was very lucky to be exposed to other languages very young, so can now communicate reasonably well in a few. Leaving aside the positive impact that early bilingualism has on the health of the brain, the learning of another language is like learning music, it is a cultural as much as a practical gain. Charlemagne is supposed to have said, "to have another language is to possess a second soul". As with skill on musical instruments which persists despite the advent of high quality recorded music, I think we will still be speaking other languages, even with the kind of technology you describe.
Forty years ago, but still catches one's throat. Easily one of the greatest political speeches in modern times. Starmer needs to find some of this heart and soul:
Interesting to see the left is still up to its old tricks of fighting against people with a paper thin difference of opinion, rather than, say, the Tories.
Learning a foreign language is incredibly difficult and that's probably how it should be. There's never going to be any shortcuts. I've totally failed at learning any of them.
No one will bother learning foreign languages. Not now. Why make all that mental effort when a bit of plastic takes away the need?
We are all going to get stupider and stupider
There will still be the need, but it will be much more specialised e.g. legal document translation. But being bilingual for general business purposes isn't going to be a major boost anymore. I remember somebody telling me how they had employed somebody who could speak something like 10 European languages to conversational level and they used them to do converse over email and phone for processing orders etc, that sort of person isn't required.
One wonders is the ultimate destination will just be everyone speaks English (American). Chinese is too hard to learn.
That is already sort of true. In Europe, most places you go, a large proportion of younger people can speak English to a decent level.
Learning a foreign language is incredibly difficult and that's probably how it should be. There's never going to be any shortcuts. I've totally failed at learning any of them.
It’s easy if you are immersed in it, and speak it daily.
Learning a foreign language is incredibly difficult and that's probably how it should be. There's never going to be any shortcuts. I've totally failed at learning any of them.
No one will bother learning foreign languages. Not now. Why make all that mental effort when a bit of plastic takes away the need?
We are all going to get stupider and stupider
Interestingly (at least to me) - my eldest has just started GCSE's and specifically eschewed any Modern Languages in favour of both Latin and Ancient Greek. In his mind it's more academically interesting, and teaches you about language construction without having to bother with speaking / listening which will become redundant anyway. Not sure that'll be a common approach but potentially...
That's a highly practical approach to take, not just a theoretical/philosophical one. One of the reasons for the practical success of the British Empire was the ability of young-ish Brits to go to the far ends of the earth and learn the local languages - which they could do because of their grounding in Latin and Greek.
Learning a foreign language is incredibly difficult and that's probably how it should be. There's never going to be any shortcuts. I've totally failed at learning any of them.
It’s easy if you are immersed in it, and speak it daily.
Academic studies have shown it is much harder to do so in general after a certain age (I want to say teenage years). Trying to do so say in your 40s is incredibly difficult. Conversely, little children, can trivially pick up multiple language by immersion. I have some relatives whose kids speak 4 languages fluently without ever having formal lessons, they were just immersed in those languages from day one.
Also, tonal languages, things like Chinese, Thai etc, once you get past a certain age, your conditioned to only make certain sounds and Westerners just don't have a load of the sounds required in our languages.
Most are better off saving by putting more into their pension than getting a shares isa which is why it’s not used so much
True, particularly given the tax reliefs, though depends on when you want to access it too, and how much you have available.
I don’t think its a bad idea generally to put as much as you can in your pension, keep a few months’ worth of outgoings + a bit of a top up for any unforeseen expenses eg home disrepair in cash, and anything left over / that you feel might be needed before you can draw your pension in equities (using ISA allowances where possible). And sticking to the general rule that any equity investment should ideally be for 5 yr + and appropriately diversified.
The squeamishness that many feel from investing in equities largely arises from a lack of education/confidence in that space. I know a lot of people who are terrified it will wipe out their savings - if we are in a situation where there is such a significant crash of stocks then we are all in much bigger trouble than just worrying about personal savings - it will impact on pensions and the whole financial system.
Learning a foreign language is incredibly difficult and that's probably how it should be. There's never going to be any shortcuts. I've totally failed at learning any of them.
The more you learn the easier it becomes. The UK fails to teach languages until high school, other countries often start in kindergarten. I was very lucky to be exposed to other languages very young, so can now communicate reasonably well in a few. Leaving aside the positive impact that early bilingualism has on the health of the brain, the learning of another language is like learning music, it is a cultural as much as a practical gain. Charlemagne is supposed to have said, "to have another language is to possess a second soul". As with skill on musical instruments which persists despite the advent of high quality recorded music, I think we will still be speaking other languages, even with the kind of technology you describe.
No we won’t. 99.8% of humans are lazy. We learned this during lockdown. We all had oodles of spare time and we resolved to learn the harpsichord and take up Mandarin but everyone just played video games, got drunk and ate too much.
Learning a foreign language is incredibly difficult and that's probably how it should be. There's never going to be any shortcuts. I've totally failed at learning any of them.
No one will bother learning foreign languages. Not now. Why make all that mental effort when a bit of plastic takes away the need?
We are all going to get stupider and stupider
There will still be the need, but it will be much more specialised e.g. legal document translation. But being bilingual for general business purposes isn't going to be a major boost anymore. I remember somebody telling me how they had employed somebody who could speak something like 10 European languages to conversational level and they used them to do converse over email and phone for processing orders etc, that sort of person isn't required.
Yet in the US, ahead of everyone else on AI, the number of people employed in translation and related work is still rising.
Language learning remains a way to gain insight into other cultures and feel less of a tourist, and is excellent exercise for the mind, both in the short term and to fend off the passage of time. Maybe the mental skills so learned spill over into other areas. So it's no more pointless than paying to go to a gym and sitting on some exercise machine.
WRT the US economy, it’s far less impressive than it’s touted to be. The US is far more a country of pettifogging bureaucracy, overtaxation (except for the super rich), absurd amounts of money wasted on a mediocre healthcare system, and grinding poverty at the bottom, than it is the land of the free and rugged entrepreneurs.
One of the big reasons it's done so well is because the average US person sticks their money into the stock market far more than we do here, where it's either cash or buying more houses - both of which are, in the round, non or low producing assets; whereas in the US the big companies have so much implied capital they can just buy anything halfway promising elsewhere in the world.
Stocks appear to be another thing people look at and say 'You made money in the markets? Then we should have taxed you more!'. Look at the perma-onanism around the idea of a financial transaction tax.
Most people don’t understand stocks, and see such investments as gambling. Whereas, if you spread your risk, it’s as safe as depositing money in a building society, with a far better rate of return.
No it isn't.
Even a widely diversified holding is exposed to various risks that cash saving isn't. A general fall in markets will affect a widely-diversified holding as it will a concentrated holding. Cash doesn't have the capital risk that investment does.
My old boss and mentor used to say 'share money is spare money'.
Depends on perceptions and timescales. In the short term a savings account is safer than a global tracker, in the long term it is a guarantee of loss.
Only if your savings rate is below your personal rate of inflation. Negative real interest rates is a comparatively new phenomenon. Most people cannot afford to lose any capital, and those chasing leech fees, aka commission, have an incentive to over-invest clients. And they do.
I suspect financial institutions make far bigger margins/leech fees on savings accounts than investment accounts.
If you don't move your savings accounts at least once a year, banks and building societies all take advantage.
The problem is a misunderstanding of the way management fees are presented.
So if a fund hypothetically returns 10% per year, the difference between a 1% tracker fee and a 3% managed fund fee is not 2%, but 20%. If the fund returns 5% per year, it’s a 40% difference that cuts your returns *in half*.
The dirty little secret is that very few actively managed funds consistently outperform a basic tracker fund over time.
Actual costs in the modern world are much lower (assuming investing in a percentage based fee if £1k invested).
Whereas to take an example, Natwest savings account offers 1.06% on savings up to £25k, Lloyds easy saver is 1%. 4.5% is available elsewhere. The high street banks are taking three quarters of your savings return due to customer inertia.
And yet it is investment platforms are seen as charging leech fees not the savings banks. All feeds into why we don't invest enough.
I think this (interesting) debate is missing the point somewhat. Increasing the extent to which individuals invest doesn't help the UK if all the investments are in US companies - a very large proportion of my ISA is overseas despite the currency risk, for example. During COVID there was insanely high saving/investment rates in the UK but that did not spur UK growth then or since.
I don't think it's the silver bullet people suggest. There does actually need to be UK businesses to invest in, but it's pretty slim pickings.
Would be more accurate to say leaving it in the UK represents a currency risk at present.
Every Labour minister has been asked, do you think Farage is racist / Reform are racist. And the more switched on ones know they have been put in a really tricky spot by Starmer, they want to say yes, because that is what they believe, but they also know it will be inferred they think all those who are considering voting Reform are Tommy Ten Names supporters who are racist and they know how well that worked for the Brexit vote.
Learning a foreign language is incredibly difficult and that's probably how it should be. There's never going to be any shortcuts. I've totally failed at learning any of them.
No one will bother learning foreign languages. Not now. Why make all that mental effort when a bit of plastic takes away the need?
We are all going to get stupider and stupider
The democratisation of culture has certainly, or so it seems, led to the pre-eminence of the low-brow. But maybe it was always like that? No doubt, there has always been parallel demotic and high brow. Light relief from Shakespeare and Marlowe, but no-one reads or watches it nowadays, or even shortly thereafter.
Politics is surely different tho, with the extension of the franchise. We have got collectively dumber. Gladstone used to give 2 hour speeches on the stump, and the Bulgarian atrocities galvanised a well-informed electorate. Not so much now.
I have arrived in Naples, Italy, after my arduous flight from Gatwick. I’m settled in a glamorous apartment in the Quattro Spagnoli, the old romantic Spanish quarters where Vespas fizz over the cobbles and the laundry hangs like flags of endless Italian surrender
I’ve got my AirPods3 in their shiny new pod. I’m ready to do my grand even futuristic experiment: do they really work as Babelfish? Does the translate function truly allow you to move smoothly through foreign languages, understanding everything, instantly?
Only problem: I’ve just discovered that Apple doesn’t offer instant Italian translation, yet. And you aren’t allowed to use these things in the EU, by law, so you can’t download the software
Situation excellent: avanti!
Should have invited my granddaughter along, as she is fluent in Italian and spent a year at Turin University !!!!
Not sure you’ve entirely grasped the purpose of my experiment
Do the AirPods translate what you say too? Or how does that side of the conversation go? Presumably because you are English, if the Italians don't understand you just shout louder until they do?
Nope. Which is a major drawback. The other person has to be wearing them as well
I’ve found some Spanish people and tried it and the translation is laggy and glitchy - but it works. So you can see that eventually - 2 years? - this tech will be transformative
The chat with an Ai expert last week said what I think you have said AI is as bad now as it will ever be - it will only improve. I'm setting a literature review this morning for 3rd year students. I will be explicitly telling them to use AI and reflect on its use. Eventually assessment will need to go back to the old style viva voce.
That is one thing I have them found bad, using AI for "literature review", both from these dedicated start-ups and general LLMs. Which is quite surprising given there is google scholar, arxiv, which collate all this infomration.
Yes. In preparation for setting the task I had a go myself with Copilot (probably not the best, but thats the official one for the Uni). Despite carefully tailoring prompts etc its still around 45%. I asked for 3000 words and it returned about 800 of vagueness.
One of my colleagues is enamoured of using it as a search engine, as it is perhaps better at finding the articles you want than say Web of Science (my go to) or Embase, Pubmed. Those can tend to throw up a lot of references, depending on how you search.
I have arrived in Naples, Italy, after my arduous flight from Gatwick. I’m settled in a glamorous apartment in the Quattro Spagnoli, the old romantic Spanish quarters where Vespas fizz over the cobbles and the laundry hangs like flags of endless Italian surrender
I’ve got my AirPods3 in their shiny new pod. I’m ready to do my grand even futuristic experiment: do they really work as Babelfish? Does the translate function truly allow you to move smoothly through foreign languages, understanding everything, instantly?
Only problem: I’ve just discovered that Apple doesn’t offer instant Italian translation, yet. And you aren’t allowed to use these things in the EU, by law, so you can’t download the software
Situation excellent: avanti!
I don't believe you can use third party translation apps either.
I don’t know if it’s the EU law actually blocking my download or not - I do know these Babelfish AirPods aren’t legally functional in the EU (yes, they’re a Brexit benefit)
Anyway I just used a vpn routed via the UK and it’s worked. Just tested them now. It actually works
Now I’m heading out into Naples, Italy, to find people who speak Spanish, German or French
Obviously the Union of European Translators did enough lobbying against Big Nasty American Technology, on one of their monthly trips between Brussels and Strasbourg.
This is becoming a real issue for the EU. It is regulating new tech into oblivion, guaranteeing the EU falls critically behind at a crucial stage. Like a government outlawing steam power in 1836
No doubt Labour is desperate for Britain to copy Brussels
It's the first absolute clear-as-day Brexit bonus: our AI regulation can be different to EU's precautionary principle stuff.
Absolutely, and it’s the sort of thing the government should be all over, massive opportunities to get ahead in a rapidly-developing, potentially game-changing new technology.
Instead they appear determined to copy the EU approach.
The only getting ahead with AI is control of the models as they approach AGI. Use of AI to do a little bit of translation is just fiddling while Rome burns. We control none and Brexit or no Brexit it makes no difference.
There’s an awful lot of EU citizens on social media who disagree with you, vehemently
Yeah but that’s just consumerism. It’s a bonus from a consumer perspective, sure. But the real value in AI is the models themselves and that’s where the wealth will be created.
If I was allowed to talk about this I could tell you all so much more. But I’m not. I could assist @turbotubbs and tell him where he’s going wrong. But I can’t. Hey Ho
Or “ggglem lech mm nyoo” as my AirPods have just put it, translating from German (I forgot to toggle the language)
It doesn't detect the language?
No. You have to switch between languages manually. I’m sure they can fix this soon. On the upside the translate app also transcribes the whole conversation by both sides - highly useful
It all feels very beta TBH - indeed I think Apple admit that. However you can ALSO sense the enormous potential. It’s a bit like using early forms of any amazing tech
Lots of glitches and lags. And yet when it’s impressive it’s quietly mindblowing. You actually forget you’re having a conversation in forrin via plastic in your ears
I just met a German student and we had an absorbing conversation which got down to the finer points of Rilke (I pre warned him I was testing these pods, otherwise I’d have looked insanely rude and quite odd)
Old Apple would never have released a product with lots of glitches and lags. But they are under huge pressure as their phone aren't special any more (Xiaomi produced a better version of the iPhone the same week), noise cancelling earbuds are two a penny and they are well behind on LLMs.
Actually - despite the lag and the glitching - these things are incredible. It is the Babelfish. It is here
I’ve just spent 5 minutes with some Spanish kids and I understood them in almost-real-time, the words pumped into my ears in that cute northern accent of Siri UK English
Wild. Apple were right to release this. Shows they are very much in the game
Thanks also for the kind messages and prayers sent to me and my wife after the birth of our stillborn son a few days ago. To update we have been able to hold him, read to him, write a card of our love for him and have a few days with him at least. The hospital chaplain also gave him a blessing. We named him Theo.
That sounds as though the hospital are on the ball, and have thinking about you as part of their practice - which is good.
But how do we mourn adults known to us who die? I see a reticence about that, sometimes - though things have changed significantly over say 3-4 decades.
(When my mum died in hospital in 2019, I went and spent some time with her body - saying goodbye, starting to put my memories in order and put her in the pas, and so on.)
Hospitals are getting better with stillbirth and child death, I think, although it's still pretty mixed (there's a study just completing on that; I'll provide links to the papers when published).
For adults, it's even more mixed, I think, but that's not my field.
When my mum died over the summer, I spent a few hours sat with her after her death (at my parents' house, so it was a calm, personal setting rather than a hospital - my dad and brother were also there) and found that helpful in a way that I had never imagined I would. I never thought I would find comfort in a dead body or want to be around one, but in her case, I did. Other than the moment of death and immediately afterwards, the hardest moment was when the undertakers took her away and particularly when they drove off.
Every Labour minister has been asked, do you think Farage is racist / Reform are racist. And the more switched on ones know they have been put in a really tricky spot by Starmer, they want to say yes, because that is what they believe, but they also know it will be inferred they think all those who are considering voting Reform are Tommy Ten Names supporters who are racist and they know how well that worked for the Brexit vote.
Watching Labour claim they're in a head to head fight with Reform, when given current polling and Labour's typical actual performance vs polls it's very possible they'll be coming 4th in a head to head race.
Learning a foreign language is incredibly difficult and that's probably how it should be. There's never going to be any shortcuts. I've totally failed at learning any of them.
No one will bother learning foreign languages. Not now. Why make all that mental effort when a bit of plastic takes away the need?
We are all going to get stupider and stupider
There will still be the need, but it will be much more specialised e.g. legal document translation. But being bilingual for general business purposes isn't going to be a major boost anymore. I remember somebody telling me how they had employed somebody who could speak something like 10 European languages to conversational level and they used them to do converse over email and phone for processing orders etc, that sort of person isn't required.
One wonders is the ultimate destination will just be everyone speaks English (American). Chinese is too hard to learn.
Most are better off saving by putting more into their pension than getting a shares isa which is why it’s not used so much
True, particularly given the tax reliefs, though depends on when you want to access it too, and how much you have available.
I don’t think its a bad idea generally to put as much as you can in your pension, keep a few months’ worth of outgoings + a bit of a top up for any unforeseen expenses eg home disrepair in cash, and anything left over / that you feel might be needed before you can draw your pension in equities (using ISA allowances where possible). And sticking to the general rule that any equity investment should ideally be for 5 yr + and appropriately diversified.
The squeamishness that many feel from investing in equities largely arises from a lack of education/confidence in that space. I know a lot of people who are terrified it will wipe out their savings - if we are in a situation where there is such a significant crash of stocks then we are all in much bigger trouble than just worrying about personal savings - it will impact on pensions and the whole financial system.
Disclaimer: I am not a financial advisor.
The main reason I have never had a non-pension investment in shares is that I've never had any money I was confident I could leave alone for at least five years.
Every Labour minister has been asked, do you think Farage is racist / Reform are racist. And the more switched on ones know they have been put in a really tricky spot by Starmer, they want to say yes, because that is what they believe, but they also know it will be inferred they think all those who are considering voting Reform are Tommy Ten Names supporters who are racist and they know how well that worked for the Brexit vote.
WRT the US economy, it’s far less impressive than it’s touted to be. The US is far more a country of pettifogging bureaucracy, overtaxation (except for the super rich), absurd amounts of money wasted on a mediocre healthcare system, and grinding poverty at the bottom, than it is the land of the free and rugged entrepreneurs.
One of the big reasons it's done so well is because the average US person sticks their money into the stock market far more than we do here, where it's either cash or buying more houses - both of which are, in the round, non or low producing assets; whereas in the US the big companies have so much implied capital they can just buy anything halfway promising elsewhere in the world.
Stocks appear to be another thing people look at and say 'You made money in the markets? Then we should have taxed you more!'. Look at the perma-onanism around the idea of a financial transaction tax.
Most people don’t understand stocks, and see such investments as gambling. Whereas, if you spread your risk, it’s as safe as depositing money in a building society, with a far better rate of return.
No it isn't.
Even a widely diversified holding is exposed to various risks that cash saving isn't. A general fall in markets will affect a widely-diversified holding as it will a concentrated holding. Cash doesn't have the capital risk that investment does.
My old boss and mentor used to say 'share money is spare money'.
Depends on perceptions and timescales. In the short term a savings account is safer than a global tracker, in the long term it is a guarantee of loss.
Only if your savings rate is below your personal rate of inflation. Negative real interest rates is a comparatively new phenomenon. Most people cannot afford to lose any capital, and those chasing leech fees, aka commission, have an incentive to over-invest clients. And they do.
I suspect financial institutions make far bigger margins/leech fees on savings accounts than investment accounts.
If you don't move your savings accounts at least once a year, banks and building societies all take advantage.
The problem is a misunderstanding of the way management fees are presented.
So if a fund hypothetically returns 10% per year, the difference between a 1% tracker fee and a 3% managed fund fee is not 2%, but 20%. If the fund returns 5% per year, it’s a 40% difference that cuts your returns *in half*.
The dirty little secret is that very few actively managed funds consistently outperform a basic tracker fund over time.
Actual costs in the modern world are much lower (assuming investing in a percentage based fee if £1k invested).
Whereas to take an example, Natwest savings account offers 1.06% on savings up to £25k, Lloyds easy saver is 1%. 4.5% is available elsewhere. The high street banks are taking three quarters of your savings return due to customer inertia.
And yet it is investment platforms are seen as charging leech fees not the savings banks. All feeds into why we don't invest enough.
I think this (interesting) debate is missing the point somewhat. Increasing the extent to which individuals invest doesn't help the UK if all the investments are in US companies - a very large proportion of my ISA is overseas despite the currency risk, for example. During COVID there was insanely high saving/investment rates in the UK but that did not spur UK growth then or since.
I don't think it's the silver bullet people suggest. There does actually need to be UK businesses to invest in, but it's pretty slim pickings.
Would be more accurate to say leaving it in the UK represents a currency risk at present.
Yes, but that said the pound is close to a three-year high against the dollar at the moment. Up about 8% from six months ago.
Learning a foreign language is incredibly difficult and that's probably how it should be. There's never going to be any shortcuts. I've totally failed at learning any of them.
No one will bother learning foreign languages. Not now. Why make all that mental effort when a bit of plastic takes away the need?
We are all going to get stupider and stupider
Not quite all. A few of us will still enjoy the mental effort, and the access to another culture that it provides.
Why bother doing anything at all ? A daft question, though it does raise the slightly less daft problem of finding purpose in life.
WRT the US economy, it’s far less impressive than it’s touted to be. The US is far more a country of pettifogging bureaucracy, overtaxation (except for the super rich), absurd amounts of money wasted on a mediocre healthcare system, and grinding poverty at the bottom, than it is the land of the free and rugged entrepreneurs.
One of the big reasons it's done so well is because the average US person sticks their money into the stock market far more than we do here, where it's either cash or buying more houses - both of which are, in the round, non or low producing assets; whereas in the US the big companies have so much implied capital they can just buy anything halfway promising elsewhere in the world.
Stocks appear to be another thing people look at and say 'You made money in the markets? Then we should have taxed you more!'. Look at the perma-onanism around the idea of a financial transaction tax.
Most people don’t understand stocks, and see such investments as gambling. Whereas, if you spread your risk, it’s as safe as depositing money in a building society, with a far better rate of return.
No it isn't.
Even a widely diversified holding is exposed to various risks that cash saving isn't. A general fall in markets will affect a widely-diversified holding as it will a concentrated holding. Cash doesn't have the capital risk that investment does.
My old boss and mentor used to say 'share money is spare money'.
Depends on perceptions and timescales. In the short term a savings account is safer than a global tracker, in the long term it is a guarantee of loss.
Only if your savings rate is below your personal rate of inflation. Negative real interest rates is a comparatively new phenomenon. Most people cannot afford to lose any capital, and those chasing leech fees, aka commission, have an incentive to over-invest clients. And they do.
I suspect financial institutions make far bigger margins/leech fees on savings accounts than investment accounts.
If you don't move your savings accounts at least once a year, banks and building societies all take advantage.
The problem is a misunderstanding of the way management fees are presented.
So if a fund hypothetically returns 10% per year, the difference between a 1% tracker fee and a 3% managed fund fee is not 2%, but 20%. If the fund returns 5% per year, it’s a 40% difference that cuts your returns *in half*.
The dirty little secret is that very few actively managed funds consistently outperform a basic tracker fund over time.
Actual costs in the modern world are much lower (assuming investing in a percentage based fee if £1k invested).
Whereas to take an example, Natwest savings account offers 1.06% on savings up to £25k, Lloyds easy saver is 1%. 4.5% is available elsewhere. The high street banks are taking three quarters of your savings return due to customer inertia.
And yet it is investment platforms are seen as charging leech fees not the savings banks. All feeds into why we don't invest enough.
I think this (interesting) debate is missing the point somewhat. Increasing the extent to which individuals invest doesn't help the UK if all the investments are in US companies - a very large proportion of my ISA is overseas despite the currency risk, for example. During COVID there was insanely high saving/investment rates in the UK but that did not spur UK growth then or since.
I don't think it's the silver bullet people suggest. There does actually need to be UK businesses to invest in, but it's pretty slim pickings.
Would be more accurate to say leaving it in the UK represents a currency risk at present.
Yes, but that said the pound is close to a three-year high against the dollar at the moment. Up about 8% from six months ago.
Thanks also for the kind messages and prayers sent to me and my wife after the birth of our stillborn son a few days ago. To update we have been able to hold him, read to him, write a card of our love for him and have a few days with him at least. The hospital chaplain also gave him a blessing. We named him Theo.
That sounds as though the hospital are on the ball, and have thinking about you as part of their practice - which is good.
But how do we mourn adults known to us who die? I see a reticence about that, sometimes - though things have changed significantly over say 3-4 decades.
(When my mum died in hospital in 2019, I went and spent some time with her body - saying goodbye, starting to put my memories in order and put her in the pas, and so on.)
Hospitals are getting better with stillbirth and child death, I think, although it's still pretty mixed (there's a study just completing on that; I'll provide links to the papers when published).
For adults, it's even more mixed, I think, but that's not my field.
When my mum died over the summer, I spent a few hours sat with her after her death (at my parents' house, so it was a calm, personal setting rather than a hospital - my dad and brother were also there) and found that helpful in a way that I had never imagined I would. I never thought I would find comfort in a dead body or want to be around one, but in her case, I did. Other than the moment of death and immediately afterwards, the hardest moment was when the undertakers took her away and particularly when they drove off.
The early Covid pandemic rules removed any such possibility for me when my dad died.
Learning a foreign language is incredibly difficult and that's probably how it should be. There's never going to be any shortcuts. I've totally failed at learning any of them.
No one will bother learning foreign languages. Not now. Why make all that mental effort when a bit of plastic takes away the need?
We are all going to get stupider and stupider
The democratisation of culture has certainly, or so it seems, led to the pre-eminence of the low-brow. But maybe it was always like that? No doubt, there has always been parallel demotic and high brow. Light relief from Shakespeare and Marlowe, but no-one reads or watches it nowadays, or even shortly thereafter.
Politics is surely different tho, with the extension of the franchise. We have got collectively dumber. Gladstone used to give 2 hour speeches on the stump, and the Bulgarian atrocities galvanised a well-informed electorate. Not so much now.
The electorate is much, much bigger. A politics and parliamentary setup when the population is around 10 million, the media is print-based and the franchise is restricted to male landowners is different to now, where the population is around 68 million, media is algorithm-driven and the franchise is anybody 16 or over.
Learning a foreign language is incredibly difficult and that's probably how it should be. There's never going to be any shortcuts. I've totally failed at learning any of them.
No one will bother learning foreign languages. Not now. Why make all that mental effort when a bit of plastic takes away the need?
We are all going to get stupider and stupider
The democratisation of culture has certainly, or so it seems, led to the pre-eminence of the low-brow. But maybe it was always like that? No doubt, there has always been parallel demotic and high brow. Light relief from Shakespeare and Marlowe, but no-one reads or watches it nowadays, or even shortly thereafter.
Politics is surely different tho, with the extension of the franchise. We have got collectively dumber. Gladstone used to give 2 hour speeches on the stump, and the Bulgarian atrocities galvanised a well-informed electorate. Not so much now.
Shakespeare was low brow. The theatre attendees weren’t (mostly) The High And Mighty.
The Gettysburg address was mocked as being a five minute speech, rather than the proper 2 hours oratory was supposed to take.
Most are better off saving by putting more into their pension than getting a shares isa which is why it’s not used so much
True, particularly given the tax reliefs, though depends on when you want to access it too, and how much you have available.
I don’t think its a bad idea generally to put as much as you can in your pension, keep a few months’ worth of outgoings + a bit of a top up for any unforeseen expenses eg home disrepair in cash, and anything left over / that you feel might be needed before you can draw your pension in equities (using ISA allowances where possible). And sticking to the general rule that any equity investment should ideally be for 5 yr + and appropriately diversified.
The squeamishness that many feel from investing in equities largely arises from a lack of education/confidence in that space. I know a lot of people who are terrified it will wipe out their savings - if we are in a situation where there is such a significant crash of stocks then we are all in much bigger trouble than just worrying about personal savings - it will impact on pensions and the whole financial system.
Disclaimer: I am not a financial advisor.
I think many see finances in 3 pots:
1) Housing: get as big a mortgage as you can afford and pay it off before retirement 2) Pension: by default heavily invested in equities for DC pensions most have now. 3) Buffer: typically in low returning cash ISAs
I suspect most people never have the financial resources to get past these 3 pots. And when they have excess, it either tops up the cash ISA or gets spent on expensive new cars / holidays / refurb kitchen / larger house etc. Or maybe buy to let another property. Which are all either "consumption" or piling more money into pot number 1. Hence as a country we have low savings rates, high consumption and housing obsessed.
What we could, as a country, do with more people doing is using that excess (where it exists) and investing it in equities or other risk assets. They would personally mostly end up better off as a result (there's risk but on average you get above inflation returns) and can ultimately spend more.
...which is what they do in the US. We should have better financial education so people can make the decision easily as to whether or not they want to do that here.
Learning a foreign language is incredibly difficult and that's probably how it should be. There's never going to be any shortcuts. I've totally failed at learning any of them.
No one will bother learning foreign languages. Not now. Why make all that mental effort when a bit of plastic takes away the need?
We are all going to get stupider and stupider
The democratisation of culture has certainly, or so it seems, led to the pre-eminence of the low-brow. But maybe it was always like that? No doubt, there has always been parallel demotic and high brow. Light relief from Shakespeare and Marlowe, but no-one reads or watches it nowadays, or even shortly thereafter.
Politics is surely different tho, with the extension of the franchise. We have got collectively dumber. Gladstone used to give 2 hour speeches on the stump, and the Bulgarian atrocities galvanised a well-informed electorate. Not so much now.
Have you read Neil Postman's book "Amusing Ourselves To Death"?
Learning a foreign language is incredibly difficult and that's probably how it should be. There's never going to be any shortcuts. I've totally failed at learning any of them.
No one will bother learning foreign languages. Not now. Why make all that mental effort when a bit of plastic takes away the need?
We are all going to get stupider and stupider
The democratisation of culture has certainly, or so it seems, led to the pre-eminence of the low-brow. But maybe it was always like that? No doubt, there has always been parallel demotic and high brow. Light relief from Shakespeare and Marlowe, but no-one reads or watches it nowadays, or even shortly thereafter.
Politics is surely different tho, with the extension of the franchise. We have got collectively dumber. Gladstone used to give 2 hour speeches on the stump, and the Bulgarian atrocities galvanised a well-informed electorate. Not so much now.
Shakespeare was low brow. The theatre attendees weren’t (mostly) The High And Mighty.
Not really true. His genius was to make an amalgam of the two things.
Learning a foreign language is incredibly difficult and that's probably how it should be. There's never going to be any shortcuts. I've totally failed at learning any of them.
No one will bother learning foreign languages. Not now. Why make all that mental effort when a bit of plastic takes away the need?
We are all going to get stupider and stupider
The democratisation of culture has certainly, or so it seems, led to the pre-eminence of the low-brow. But maybe it was always like that? No doubt, there has always been parallel demotic and high brow. Light relief from Shakespeare and Marlowe, but no-one reads or watches it nowadays, or even shortly thereafter.
Politics is surely different tho, with the extension of the franchise. We have got collectively dumber. Gladstone used to give 2 hour speeches on the stump, and the Bulgarian atrocities galvanised a well-informed electorate. Not so much now.
Shakespeare was low brow. The theatre attendees weren’t (mostly) The High And Mighty.
Not really true. His genius was to make an amalgam of the two things.
WRT the US economy, it’s far less impressive than it’s touted to be. The US is far more a country of pettifogging bureaucracy, overtaxation (except for the super rich), absurd amounts of money wasted on a mediocre healthcare system, and grinding poverty at the bottom, than it is the land of the free and rugged entrepreneurs.
One of the big reasons it's done so well is because the average US person sticks their money into the stock market far more than we do here, where it's either cash or buying more houses - both of which are, in the round, non or low producing assets; whereas in the US the big companies have so much implied capital they can just buy anything halfway promising elsewhere in the world.
Stocks appear to be another thing people look at and say 'You made money in the markets? Then we should have taxed you more!'. Look at the perma-onanism around the idea of a financial transaction tax.
Most people don’t understand stocks, and see such investments as gambling. Whereas, if you spread your risk, it’s as safe as depositing money in a building society, with a far better rate of return.
No it isn't.
Even a widely diversified holding is exposed to various risks that cash saving isn't. A general fall in markets will affect a widely-diversified holding as it will a concentrated holding. Cash doesn't have the capital risk that investment does.
My old boss and mentor used to say 'share money is spare money'.
Depends on perceptions and timescales. In the short term a savings account is safer than a global tracker, in the long term it is a guarantee of loss.
Only if your savings rate is below your personal rate of inflation. Negative real interest rates is a comparatively new phenomenon. Most people cannot afford to lose any capital, and those chasing leech fees, aka commission, have an incentive to over-invest clients. And they do.
I suspect financial institutions make far bigger margins/leech fees on savings accounts than investment accounts.
If you don't move your savings accounts at least once a year, banks and building societies all take advantage.
The problem is a misunderstanding of the way management fees are presented.
So if a fund hypothetically returns 10% per year, the difference between a 1% tracker fee and a 3% managed fund fee is not 2%, but 20%. If the fund returns 5% per year, it’s a 40% difference that cuts your returns *in half*.
The dirty little secret is that very few actively managed funds consistently outperform a basic tracker fund over time.
Actual costs in the modern world are much lower (assuming investing in a percentage based fee if £1k invested).
Whereas to take an example, Natwest savings account offers 1.06% on savings up to £25k, Lloyds easy saver is 1%. 4.5% is available elsewhere. The high street banks are taking three quarters of your savings return due to customer inertia.
And yet it is investment platforms are seen as charging leech fees not the savings banks. All feeds into why we don't invest enough.
I think this (interesting) debate is missing the point somewhat. Increasing the extent to which individuals invest doesn't help the UK if all the investments are in US companies - a very large proportion of my ISA is overseas despite the currency risk, for example. During COVID there was insanely high saving/investment rates in the UK but that did not spur UK growth then or since.
I don't think it's the silver bullet people suggest. There does actually need to be UK businesses to invest in, but it's pretty slim pickings.
Would be more accurate to say leaving it in the UK represents a currency risk at present.
Yes, but that said the pound is close to a three-year high against the dollar at the moment. Up about 8% from six months ago.
Trump deliberately drove the dollar down. Look at GBPvsEUR for a counterexample
I have arrived in Naples, Italy, after my arduous flight from Gatwick. I’m settled in a glamorous apartment in the Quattro Spagnoli, the old romantic Spanish quarters where Vespas fizz over the cobbles and the laundry hangs like flags of endless Italian surrender
I’ve got my AirPods3 in their shiny new pod. I’m ready to do my grand even futuristic experiment: do they really work as Babelfish? Does the translate function truly allow you to move smoothly through foreign languages, understanding everything, instantly?
Only problem: I’ve just discovered that Apple doesn’t offer instant Italian translation, yet. And you aren’t allowed to use these things in the EU, by law, so you can’t download the software
Situation excellent: avanti!
Should have invited my granddaughter along, as she is fluent in Italian and spent a year at Turin University !!!!
Not sure you’ve entirely grasped the purpose of my experiment
Do the AirPods translate what you say too? Or how does that side of the conversation go? Presumably because you are English, if the Italians don't understand you just shout louder until they do?
Nope. Which is a major drawback. The other person has to be wearing them as well
I’ve found some Spanish people and tried it and the translation is laggy and glitchy - but it works. So you can see that eventually - 2 years? - this tech will be transformative
The chat with an Ai expert last week said what I think you have said AI is as bad now as it will ever be - it will only improve. I'm setting a literature review this morning for 3rd year students. I will be explicitly telling them to use AI and reflect on its use. Eventually assessment will need to go back to the old style viva voce.
That is one thing I have them found bad, using AI for "literature review", both from these dedicated start-ups and general LLMs. Which is quite surprising given there is google scholar, arxiv, which collate all this infomration.
Yes. In preparation for setting the task I had a go myself with Copilot (probably not the best, but thats the official one for the Uni). Despite carefully tailoring prompts etc its still around 45%. I asked for 3000 words and it returned about 800 of vagueness.
One of my colleagues is enamoured of using it as a search engine, as it is perhaps better at finding the articles you want than say Web of Science (my go to) or Embase, Pubmed. Those can tend to throw up a lot of references, depending on how you search.
I have arrived in Naples, Italy, after my arduous flight from Gatwick. I’m settled in a glamorous apartment in the Quattro Spagnoli, the old romantic Spanish quarters where Vespas fizz over the cobbles and the laundry hangs like flags of endless Italian surrender
I’ve got my AirPods3 in their shiny new pod. I’m ready to do my grand even futuristic experiment: do they really work as Babelfish? Does the translate function truly allow you to move smoothly through foreign languages, understanding everything, instantly?
Only problem: I’ve just discovered that Apple doesn’t offer instant Italian translation, yet. And you aren’t allowed to use these things in the EU, by law, so you can’t download the software
Situation excellent: avanti!
I don't believe you can use third party translation apps either.
I don’t know if it’s the EU law actually blocking my download or not - I do know these Babelfish AirPods aren’t legally functional in the EU (yes, they’re a Brexit benefit)
Anyway I just used a vpn routed via the UK and it’s worked. Just tested them now. It actually works
Now I’m heading out into Naples, Italy, to find people who speak Spanish, German or French
Obviously the Union of European Translators did enough lobbying against Big Nasty American Technology, on one of their monthly trips between Brussels and Strasbourg.
This is becoming a real issue for the EU. It is regulating new tech into oblivion, guaranteeing the EU falls critically behind at a crucial stage. Like a government outlawing steam power in 1836
No doubt Labour is desperate for Britain to copy Brussels
It's the first absolute clear-as-day Brexit bonus: our AI regulation can be different to EU's precautionary principle stuff.
Absolutely, and it’s the sort of thing the government should be all over, massive opportunities to get ahead in a rapidly-developing, potentially game-changing new technology.
Instead they appear determined to copy the EU approach.
The only getting ahead with AI is control of the models as they approach AGI. Use of AI to do a little bit of translation is just fiddling while Rome burns. We control none and Brexit or no Brexit it makes no difference.
There’s an awful lot of EU citizens on social media who disagree with you, vehemently
Yeah but that’s just consumerism. It’s a bonus from a consumer perspective, sure. But the real value in AI is the models themselves and that’s where the wealth will be created.
If I was allowed to talk about this I could tell you all so much more. But I’m not. I could assist @turbotubbs and tell him where he’s going wrong. But I can’t. Hey Ho
Or “ggglem lech mm nyoo” as my AirPods have just put it, translating from German (I forgot to toggle the language)
Learning a foreign language is incredibly difficult and that's probably how it should be. There's never going to be any shortcuts. I've totally failed at learning any of them.
No one will bother learning foreign languages. Not now. Why make all that mental effort when a bit of plastic takes away the need?
We are all going to get stupider and stupider
There will still be the need, but it will be much more specialised e.g. legal document translation. But being bilingual for general business purposes isn't going to be a major boost anymore. I remember somebody telling me how they had employed somebody who could speak something like 10 European languages to conversational level and they used them to do converse over email and phone for processing orders etc, that sort of person isn't required.
Yet in the US, ahead of everyone else on AI, the number of people employed in translation and related work is still rising.
Language learning remains a way to gain insight into other cultures and feel less of a tourist, and is excellent exercise for the mind, both in the short term and to fend off the passage of time. Maybe the mental skills so learned spill over into other areas. So it's no more pointless than paying to go to a gym and sitting on some exercise machine.
I used to have freelance translation as a useful second income, but the market has almost completely collapsed in the last 4 years. My niche was legislative translation, which you'd think would be relatively resistant to AI, but all you can get now is a draft AI transation which is 98% correct (which if we're honest is all that most humans could do), and get paid a pittance for looking for the odd gap (AI doesn't put ??? if it's stumped, it just omits the phrase). I've simply retired (I'm 75 and don't need it) but professional translators in their 40s must be looking at a cliff edge. I wouldn't advise anyone to learn languages except for pleasure.
In an ideal world, of course, the government would smooth it out by taxing AI translation and perhaps subsidising alternatives, but the real world doesn't work like that. Advising current students on what to specialise in is very tricky - something with a lot of human interaction and/or a manual trade.
Learning a foreign language is incredibly difficult and that's probably how it should be. There's never going to be any shortcuts. I've totally failed at learning any of them.
No one will bother learning foreign languages. Not now. Why make all that mental effort when a bit of plastic takes away the need?
We are all going to get stupider and stupider
There will still be the need, but it will be much more specialised e.g. legal document translation. But being bilingual for general business purposes isn't going to be a major boost anymore. I remember somebody telling me how they had employed somebody who could speak something like 10 European languages to conversational level and they used them to do converse over email and phone for processing orders etc, that sort of person isn't required.
One wonders is the ultimate destination will just be everyone speaks English (American). Chinese is too hard to learn.
Nonsense. If you're only speaking and listening, Chinese is much easier. Especially if you speak anything other than Indo-European.
Thanks also for the kind messages and prayers sent to me and my wife after the birth of our stillborn son a few days ago. To update we have been able to hold him, read to him, write a card of our love for him and have a few days with him at least. The hospital chaplain also gave him a blessing. We named him Theo.
That sounds as though the hospital are on the ball, and have thinking about you as part of their practice - which is good.
But how do we mourn adults known to us who die? I see a reticence about that, sometimes - though things have changed significantly over say 3-4 decades.
(When my mum died in hospital in 2019, I went and spent some time with her body - saying goodbye, starting to put my memories in order and put her in the pas, and so on.)
Hospitals are getting better with stillbirth and child death, I think, although it's still pretty mixed (there's a study just completing on that; I'll provide links to the papers when published).
For adults, it's even more mixed, I think, but that's not my field.
When my mum died over the summer, I spent a few hours sat with her after her death (at my parents' house, so it was a calm, personal setting rather than a hospital - my dad and brother were also there) and found that helpful in a way that I had never imagined I would. I never thought I would find comfort in a dead body or want to be around one, but in her case, I did. Other than the moment of death and immediately afterwards, the hardest moment was when the undertakers took her away and particularly when they drove off.
The early Covid pandemic rules removed any such possibility for me when my dad died.
A like seems inappropriate here. I remember you posting about this, there was a lot of damage done by those rules, which probably could have been managed in other ways - people would have accepted a lot of restrictions, I think, to have the ability to visit their loved ones near to death.
I can understand the good intention behind some of those rules, but it's something that should be built into future planning. I was fortunate, in so many ways (my job enables me to work remotely, so I was there full time in the couple of weeks before and a few days afterwards).
Comments
What has Cooper ever really done? What has she achieved? What is “Cooperism”, her vision for fixing the country? As far as I can see it would just be more bland centrist orthodoxy and apart from her physical make-up I can’t see why she would be any different or better than Starmer.
She’s been a high profile MP for a long time and I cannot for the life of me think of anything she’s ever said that made me take notice.
My wife still occasionally talks about the way a stillbirth affected her mother - grief can be very hard & can strike at the most unexpected moments. I hope you both have people you feel able to talk to whilst supporting each other.
https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1972966545086455946?s=19
https://x.com/convertbond/status/1972866129837412407?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cge20pnx1rqo
"Why Starmer wants to keep talking about Farage"
But with automation my role changed - I now spend 70% of my time as a Senior Lecturer in Med Chem, so teaching and research, rather than NMR.
I do still sit as the repository of 30 years experience of NMR - a PhD student came with a puzzle on friday which I solved in about 2 minutes. So I still have some use. Plus users still need us to help them get the best from the NMR's.
So I'm not too worried. I nearly became 100% Med Chem last year, but I wanted to retain some NMR component to my life. I guess my journey will be replicated across a lot of areas, just as all advances in technology has done. Now one farmer can farm 100 acres with lots of shiny tractors etc where once it would have been one farmer and 5 farm hands, plus all hands on deck at harvest.
Whereas to take an example, Natwest savings account offers 1.06% on savings up to £25k, Lloyds easy saver is 1%. 4.5% is available elsewhere. The high street banks are taking three quarters of your savings return due to customer inertia.
And yet it is investment platforms are seen as charging leech fees not the savings banks. All feeds into why we don't invest enough.
Netanyahu collapsed the last ceasefire process, so I don't see how he can be trusted in any way. Plus Trump regards international treaties as disposable at will, just like domestic law if he can get away with it.
The only key external stakeholder is the USA, surely.
Anti-Netanyahu demonstrations have been running at realistically up to 50-100k (estimates 15k to 600k or so !) in a country with a population of 10 million, of whom 2+ million are the Arab minority, for some time (years).
I don't think it's the silver bullet people suggest. There does actually need to be UK businesses to invest in, but it's pretty slim pickings.
There is a misconception that if you, for example, buy £x worth of shares in ABC plc then £x goes to ABC plc. It doesn't, it goes to the seller/s of the shares you are buying.
I'm pretty sure Reeves doesn't understand this given the stuff she comes out with.
"Digital IDs ‘dead in the water in six months’ as opposition mounts
Peter Hyman, who advised Sir Keir Starmer in opposition, has told the Labour Party conference the party has failed to challenge conspiracy theories" (£)
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/digital-ids-dead-in-the-water-in-six-months-as-opposition-mounts-m7wbsdn6j
I'm talking generally about cash deposits versus stock market investing and the comparative risk this entails.
Comparing advised investing with 100% perfect Cash ISA switchers would be equally disingenuous in the other direction.
An interesting question is: which is better for the UK economy: 1) investing in S&S ISA (global all cap) 2) Spending your cash in the UK on goods and services provided by local businesses
It all feels very beta TBH - indeed I think Apple admit that. However you can ALSO sense the enormous potential. It’s a bit like using early forms of any amazing tech
Lots of glitches and lags. And yet when it’s impressive it’s quietly mindblowing. You actually forget you’re having a conversation in forrin via plastic in your ears
I just met a German student and we had an absorbing conversation which got down to the finer points of Rilke (I pre warned him I was testing these pods, otherwise I’d have looked insanely rude and quite odd)
When I invest in a savings account, I feel the need to review rates every 6-12 months as the fees are exploitative and unstable.
I don't think my comparison is disingenuous.
Investing in a S&S ISA, and SIPP, helps people provide for retirement and means the govt won’t have to give them additional pension top ups.
"Digital ID compounds smartphone dystopia
Just as the world is understanding how damaging they are for our brains and souls, this plan makes them compulsory" (£)
https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/digital-id-compounds-smartphone-dystopia-h736qdqm2
I think most people who don't have one now are not going to get one because of this ID plan.
BREAKING: Romanian Parliament receives from the MoD the request to buy 216 K2 Panther tanks for the military. They will be produced in Romania - Defense Romania
https://x.com/AlexandruC4/status/1972937673125007387
This is from George Finch, who is the 19 year old leader of Warwickshire County Council:
The next motion threw up Cllr Finch’s plan to scrap active travel projects – particularly cycle lanes * – that are already funded by central government, stating “we will bounce that (money) back to the national government and they can work on other things”.
He said such works would “eventually destroy our town centres”, describing cycle lanes as “bogus”.
It was questioned whether he was serious about giving up allocated cash as it is unlikely – probably impossible – for the council to get that back for other things.
http://bit.ly/471wkv8 (more at the link, which is a Stratford Herald article about a bizarre Council meeting.)
I think we'll be seeing the same in Councils like Lincs, Notts, Derbys - as RefUK's policy operation is afaics very centrally driven by dogma on such issues.
* I suspect that Councillor Finch has not got the foggiest notion what a "cycle lane" actually is, and he will come a cropper here with the Equality Act and his councils Public Sector Equality Duty.
I remember having a meeting, as one of my former council's pension investment panel,with the guy who used to run Newton (now BNY Mellon) Real Return fund. The presentation they gave us was all about the clever ways they had of reducing risk, with currency hedging and swaps, commodities, and the like - but I'd been a shareholder in his fund, which is targeted to achieve a real return over some bond index - for years before, and I knew that when markets rose,his fund rose but not by as much, and when markets fell his fund fell, but not by as much. Presented with this observation, he didn't really have a satisfactory response.
We are all going to get stupider and stupider
Tides of History
@labour_history
40 years ago, tomorrow, Neil Kinnock went to Bournemouth and delivered the speech of his life…
https://x.com/labour_history/status/1972922701246521830
Interesting to see the left is still up to its old tricks of fighting against people with a paper thin difference of opinion, rather than, say, the Tories.
Also, tonal languages, things like Chinese, Thai etc, once you get past a certain age, your conditioned to only make certain sounds and Westerners just don't have a load of the sounds required in our languages.
I don’t think its a bad idea generally to put as much as you can in your pension, keep a few months’ worth of outgoings + a bit of a top up for any unforeseen expenses eg home disrepair in cash, and anything left over / that you feel might be needed before you can draw your pension in equities (using ISA allowances where possible). And sticking to the general rule that any equity investment should ideally be for 5 yr + and appropriately diversified.
The squeamishness that many feel from investing in equities largely arises from a lack of education/confidence in that space. I know a lot of people who are terrified it will wipe out their savings - if we are in a situation where there is such a significant crash of stocks then we are all in much bigger trouble than just worrying about personal savings - it will impact on pensions and the whole financial system.
Disclaimer: I am not a financial advisor.
https://vote-2012.proboards.com/thread/19732/local-council-elections-october-2025
Language learning remains a way to gain insight into other cultures and feel less of a tourist, and is excellent exercise for the mind, both in the short term and to fend off the passage of time. Maybe the mental skills so learned spill over into other areas. So it's no more pointless than paying to go to a gym and sitting on some exercise machine.
Politics is surely different tho, with the extension of the franchise. We have got collectively dumber. Gladstone used to give 2 hour speeches on the stump, and the Bulgarian atrocities galvanised a well-informed electorate. Not so much now.
I’ve just spent 5 minutes with some Spanish kids and I understood them in almost-real-time, the words pumped into my ears in that cute northern accent of Siri UK English
Wild. Apple were right to release this. Shows they are very much in the game
For adults, it's even more mixed, I think, but that's not my field.
When my mum died over the summer, I spent a few hours sat with her after her death (at my parents' house, so it was a calm, personal setting rather than a hospital - my dad and brother were also there) and found that helpful in a way that I had never imagined I would. I never thought I would find comfort in a dead body or want to be around one, but in her case, I did. Other than the moment of death and immediately afterwards, the hardest moment was when the undertakers took her away and particularly when they drove off.
A few of us will still enjoy the mental effort, and the access to another culture that it provides.
Why bother doing anything at all ?
A daft question, though it does raise the slightly less daft problem of finding purpose in life.
The Gettysburg address was mocked as being a five minute speech, rather than the proper 2 hours oratory was supposed to take.
1) Housing: get as big a mortgage as you can afford and pay it off before retirement
2) Pension: by default heavily invested in equities for DC pensions most have now.
3) Buffer: typically in low returning cash ISAs
I suspect most people never have the financial resources to get past these 3 pots. And when they have excess, it either tops up the cash ISA or gets spent on expensive new cars / holidays / refurb kitchen / larger house etc. Or maybe buy to let another property. Which are all either "consumption" or piling more money into pot number 1. Hence as a country we have low savings rates, high consumption and housing obsessed.
What we could, as a country, do with more people doing is using that excess (where it exists) and investing it in equities or other risk assets. They would personally mostly end up better off as a result (there's risk but on average you get above inflation returns) and can ultimately spend more.
...which is what they do in the US. We should have better financial education so people can make the decision easily as to whether or not they want to do that here.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/730194
His genius was to make an amalgam of the two things.
In an ideal world, of course, the government would smooth it out by taxing AI translation and perhaps subsidising alternatives, but the real world doesn't work like that. Advising current students on what to specialise in is very tricky - something with a lot of human interaction and/or a manual trade.
If you're only speaking and listening, Chinese is much easier. Especially if you speak anything other than Indo-European.
I can understand the good intention behind some of those rules, but it's something that should be built into future planning. I was fortunate, in so many ways (my job enables me to work remotely, so I was there full time in the couple of weeks before and a few days afterwards).