Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
as has been pointed out already, the UK blocked moves by EU to impose tariffs on chinese steel....... result was tariffs increased by 13% instead of the large increases EU wants, chinas response... was to impose tarrifs anyway.
the facts didnt change, you were just blind to them.
Steel might well be a small industry but it is also vital that we have one, trident replacement, new power stations are not things we need to be building with either chinese steel or chinese investment, we ve also cross rail and HS2/3 northern power house.
We also make some very high grade steel and as said steel is used in car production.
we export comparatively little to china and they need to export and internal demand is nt growing as they want, do they really want to push up their export prices across the world?
Giving into to them like the UK is doing is foolish, once europes steel industry is gone, what then? china can charge what it likes or supply none.
the sad thing here is this saga (coming on top of the budget shambols) just makes the Tories look weak and indecisive, which they are but as i ve said before, this reflects badly on the UK too
0 -
The Chinese imposition of tariffs on EU steel is a new fact - from the Guardian within the last 24 hours:mamba80 wrote:as has been pointed out already, the UK blocked moves by EU to impose tariffs on chinese steel....... result was tariffs increased by 13% instead of the large increases EU wants, chinas response... was to impose tarrifs anyway.
the facts didnt change, you were just blind to them.
Steel might well be a small industry but it is also vital that we have one, trident replacement, new power stations are not things we need to be building with either chinese steel or chinese investment, we ve also cross rail and HS2/3 northern power house.
We also make some very high grade steel and as said steel is used in car production.
we export comparatively little to china and they need to export and internal demand is nt growing as they want, do they really want to push up their export prices across the world?
Giving into to them like the UK is doing is foolish, once europes steel industry is gone, what then? china can charge what it likes or supply none.
the sad thing here is this saga (coming on top of the budget shambols) just makes the Tories look weak and indecisive, which they are but as i ve said before, this reflects badly on the UK too
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/01/chinese-imposes-tariff-on-eu-steel-imports-tata
That's called a new fact :roll:
As for this point about the UK needing to make steel because we use it. The logic is fundamentally flawed. We need a huge range of things that we dont make in the UK. There is this thing called global trade where we sell things that other countries need and they sell us thing that we need
Why is steel fundamentally different?
Are you saying the UK needs to be self sufficient in everything?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
mamba80 wrote:Giving into to them like the UK is doing is foolish, once europes steel industry is gone, what then? china can charge what it likes or supply none.
China Produces 47% of the global production of steel* so the price they could potentially charge for it is tempered by the combined production by the rest of the world.
As the Chinese economy is going through a tricky patch, where the internal market is much reduced, they are relying on the export market to prop the over subsidised industry up so a combined international trade war would seriously question the subsidy. Whilst the Chinese economy is relatively strong, the internal subsidy can be justified/afforded. If it continues to decline and the export market is less lucrative because of trade tariffs/demand, the infrastructure could collapse.
*World steel association. According to the Harvard BS - 40%.
The Chinese cannot continue growing at the current rate. They will start to suffer the same constraints as the west in terms of wage expectations, energy costs, etc. I think that this is just the tip of the iceberg. The Chinese central bank uses vast reserves to uphold their currency on the international market but for how long?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comm ... s-all.html
So, when the snowball starts to roll: push.
China views the steel industry as a pillar of their economy but the energy supply to the steel industry is subsidised by an estimated $27m. It's all a bit fragile really.
https://hbr.org/2008/06/subsidies-and-the-china-priceseanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:The Chinese imposition of tariffs on EU steel is a new fact - from the Guardian within the last 24 hours:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/01/chinese-imposes-tariff-on-eu-steel-imports-tata
That's called a new fact :roll:
As for this point about the UK needing to make steel because we use it. The logic is fundamentally flawed. We need a huge range of things that we dont make in the UK. There is this thing called global trade where we sell things that other countries need and they sell us thing that we need Why is steel fundamentally different?
Are you saying the UK needs to be self sufficient in everything?
why does it have to be either/or with you? would you suggest that the UK should NOT be self sufficient in anything at all?
how many times do people have to say to you that there is a balance? steel is fundamental to construction, defence etc and you certainly want us to be self sufficient in Nuclear weapons BUT not in the submarines that carry them, or the cranes, deep water docks or the infrastructure that they would need... say the rail tracks that carry the warheads from a to b - what would happen in 10 or 20 years from now if werent able to get sufficient steel for power stations or nuclear deterrent.
china would love to be able to dictate terms and be the worlds number one player in steel and fools like you would let them.
if a fraction of what we spend/waste on subsidising agriculture was invested into Steel, we d not be in this crisis at all, germany is certainly investing in steel at far higher rates than we are, our production has fallen heavily, theirs has hardly changed, why is that?
fwiw the imposition of tariffs by China was easily predicted and many economic commentators said china would do so within days, follow US import tariffs (and the very small EU ones), equally China snubbing Cameron was all to type, they see him as a weak leader with a begging bowl to be pushed around.....
Do you now think we should use chinese investment at Hinkley?0 -
(mamba80 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:The Chinese imposition of tariffs on EU steel is a new fact - from the Guardian within the last 24 hours:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/01/chinese-imposes-tariff-on-eu-steel-imports-tata
That's called a new fact :roll:
As for this point about the UK needing to make steel because we use it. The logic is fundamentally flawed. We need a huge range of things that we dont make in the UK. There is this thing called global trade where we sell things that other countries need and they sell us thing that we need Why is steel fundamentally different?
Are you saying the UK needs to be self sufficient in everything?
why does it have to be either/or with you? would you suggest that the UK should NOT be self sufficient in anything at all?
how many times do people have to say to you that there is a balance? steel is fundamental to construction, defence etc and you certainly want us to be self sufficient in Nuclear weapons BUT not in the submarines that carry them, or the cranes, deep water docks or the infrastructure that they would need... say the rail tracks that carry the warheads from a to b - what would happen in 10 or 20 years from now if werent able to get sufficient steel for power stations or nuclear deterrent.
china would love to be able to dictate terms and be the worlds number one player in steel and fools like you would let them.
if a fraction of what we spend/waste on subsidising agriculture was invested into Steel, we d not be in this crisis at all, germany is certainly investing in steel at far higher rates than we are, our production has fallen heavily, theirs has hardly changed, why is that?
fwiw the imposition of tariffs by China was easily predicted and many economic commentators said china would do so within days, follow US import tariffs (and the very small EU ones), equally China snubbing Cameron was all to type, they see him as a weak leader with a begging bowl to be pushed around.....
Do you now think we should use chinese investment at Hinkley?
Your ideas on self sufficiency are 70 years out of date... Can you really forsee us locked in a protracted war of several years involving us being blockaded?
Our nuclear deterrent is bought off an American shelf and can not be used without their authorisation so is a 100% waste of money. Even if we could unilaterally launch, who could you imagine nuking?
Interestingly we subsidise agriculture based on an idea 70 years out of date! ie that we may need to withstand a naval blockade for several years. It is however the correct conclusion and we should not subsidise it.
IMHO we should use govt money to seed industries (tidal power?) where we could become world leaders or where a short-term investment will turn fortunes around.0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:On the first point, what do you think the state can realistically do in this case? It can't magic jobs out of thin air. I think you may overestimate what is feasible for the state to do.
How about diverting some of that money they're about to p1ss away on forcing all schools to become academies (despite the fact that a cross-bench inquiry found no evidence that the academies programme has driven up standards)? Or if they really feel that the plant isn't worth saving, what about infrastructure works in the region, to soak up some of the unemployed workers? Now that the Tories have finally accepted that borrowing money for infrastructure spending might actually be a good idea, I'm sure you'd have no objection to that.Stevo 666 wrote:On the second point, you can also look at number of people in work - also at a record high and harder to fudge. I know it's hard to swallow good news under a tory govt. but good news it is.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/uklabourmarket/march2016#employment
The difference between unemployment rate and people in work is that unemployment rate counts people who are out of work and looking, whereas number of people in work counts people who are working, not taking into consideration why they are/are not working. So if, for example, somebody decides that they want to take early retirement, or take time off work to bring up their children, they will count as somebody who is out of work (but not in the unemployment figures). If, on the other hand, people feel like they can't do that because of economic circumstances (for example if property prices or rents are too high for families to survive on one wage), then they might be forced back into work unwillingly. That is why unemployment rates are a better indicator of economic health than the number of people who are in work - it gives a clearer picture of how the economy is benefiting or hurting people. I'm not saying that unemployment hasn't fallen (it has), I'm just saying that the government (whether Labour or Tory) should stop f**king about with the benefits system and how unemployment is counted, so we can have clear, consistent figures.
As for not wanting good economic news, I'm self-employed, of course I want good economic news. I'm also going to be graduating this October and looking to start a new career, so again I want the employment situation to be advantageous to me for at least another year or two. Do you think I want my family to suffer, just to spite the Tories?
However, even the Daily Torygraph have now run out of "everything is brilliant under the Tory government" articles to print. We're in choppy waters, just waiting for the storm to hit. If it could be delayed a couple of years, that would be absolutely brilliant for me, but I fear that's not going to happen.
Anyway, just to clarify (yet again), I don't pin all the blame on one party or the other. The situation we see today has been decades in the making, and our economy is hamstrung by factors such as:
- an education system which turns out vast numbers of students every year with no worthwhile qualifications
- lower productivity than many of our rivals
- short-termist thinking
- under-investment
- high inequality and low social mobility
- a high current account deficit - one of the worst in the developed world
- failing public services
- high levels of personal debt
- a generally unhealthy population
I've posted links regarding most, if not all of these issues before, and argued as to why they are a problem, so I'm not going to go looking for links or making the same old arguments to prove my points all over again, if it means that much to you, you can wade through 89 pages of posts, but I hope for your sake that you've got better things to do with your time than that.0 -
What the Chinese producers can charge for steel is mainly hampered by supply and demand. There is massive oversupply, particularly in China - compared to overall demand in China and globally. Laws of supply and demand mean low prices. And likely to stay that was as apparently China still has more capacity in the process of construction which cannot be turned off at the flick of a switch.Pinno wrote:mamba80 wrote:Giving into to them like the UK is doing is foolish, once europes steel industry is gone, what then? china can charge what it likes or supply none.
China Produces 47% of the global production of steel* so the price they could potentially charge for it is tempered by the combined production by the rest of the world.
As the Chinese economy is going through a tricky patch, where the internal market is much reduced, they are relying on the export market to prop the over subsidised industry up so a combined international trade war would seriously question the subsidy. Whilst the Chinese economy is relatively strong, the internal subsidy can be justified/afforded. If it continues to decline and the export market is less lucrative because of trade tariffs/demand, the infrastructure could collapse.
*World steel association. According to the Harvard BS - 40%.
The Chinese cannot continue growing at the current rate. They will start to suffer the same constraints as the west in terms of wage expectations, energy costs, etc. I think that this is just the tip of the iceberg. The Chinese central bank uses vast reserves to uphold their currency on the international market but for how long?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comm ... s-all.html
So, when the snowball starts to roll: push.
China views the steel industry as a pillar of their economy but the energy supply to the steel industry is subsidised by an estimated $27m. It's all a bit fragile really.
https://hbr.org/2008/06/subsidies-and-the-china-price
Ironically the incentives the Beijing were dishing out are now backfiring on them and the regime is apparently trying to reign them in, but with limited success.
Clearly import duties can raise the price of Chinese steel relative to other sources, but as has been pointed out above, we need to look at the impact of Chinese retaliation in markets where we export to them. Same goes for all concerned."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
That's fine as long as the supply is global.Stevo 666 wrote:What the Chinese producers can charge for steel is mainly hampered by supply and demand. There is massive oversupply, particularly in China - compared to overall demand in China and globally. Laws of supply and demand mean low prices. And likely to stay that was as apparently China still has more capacity in the process of construction which cannot be turned off at the flick of a switch.
Once China has control of supply they can control that balance and charge as they see fit. They won't mind if their steel is cheap.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Beat me to it SC.Surrey Commuter wrote:
(mamba80 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:The Chinese imposition of tariffs on EU steel is a new fact - from the Guardian within the last 24 hours:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/01/chinese-imposes-tariff-on-eu-steel-imports-tata
That's called a new fact :roll:
As for this point about the UK needing to make steel because we use it. The logic is fundamentally flawed. We need a huge range of things that we dont make in the UK. There is this thing called global trade where we sell things that other countries need and they sell us thing that we need Why is steel fundamentally different?
Are you saying the UK needs to be self sufficient in everything?
why does it have to be either/or with you? would you suggest that the UK should NOT be self sufficient in anything at all?
how many times do people have to say to you that there is a balance? steel is fundamental to construction, defence etc and you certainly want us to be self sufficient in Nuclear weapons BUT not in the submarines that carry them, or the cranes, deep water docks or the infrastructure that they would need... say the rail tracks that carry the warheads from a to b - what would happen in 10 or 20 years from now if werent able to get sufficient steel for power stations or nuclear deterrent.
china would love to be able to dictate terms and be the worlds number one player in steel and fools like you would let them.
if a fraction of what we spend/waste on subsidising agriculture was invested into Steel, we d not be in this crisis at all, germany is certainly investing in steel at far higher rates than we are, our production has fallen heavily, theirs has hardly changed, why is that?
fwiw the imposition of tariffs by China was easily predicted and many economic commentators said china would do so within days, follow US import tariffs (and the very small EU ones), equally China snubbing Cameron was all to type, they see him as a weak leader with a begging bowl to be pushed around.....
Do you now think we should use chinese investment at Hinkley?
Your ideas on self sufficiency are 70 years out of date... Can you really forsee us locked in a protracted war of several years involving us being blockaded?
Our nuclear deterrent is bought off an American shelf and can not be used without their authorisation so is a 100% waste of money. Even if we could unilaterally launch, who could you imagine nuking?
Interestingly we subsidise agriculture based on an idea 70 years out of date! ie that we may need to withstand a naval blockade for several years. It is however the correct conclusion and we should not subsidise it.
IMHO we should use govt money to seed industries (tidal power?) where we could become world leaders or where a short-term investment will turn fortunes around.
Also there is simply to comparison between steel and defence. They are to very different things. Defence as common sense dictates is something a country has to own and have full control over. Steel is a raw material that can be bought and sold like other raw materials. To simplify a bit, in modern global economy, you produce some things and sell them to other countries: other countries produce other things and sell them to you. Specialisation in what we are best at if you like. No country is truly self sufficient because they don't need to be unless you are in war/siege situation.
If we really don't like China as you clearly don't, there are other countries we can and do buy steel from...
Mamba, as has been said above, your views appear to be from WW2 on this.
As for your claim about German steel production, a quick google shows that German steel revenues have dropped from €49.7 bn to €37.8 bn (a decline of nearly 25%) since 2011, so that claim is a load of leftiebollox. Also, why not look at our export of financial services compared to Germany, for example?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Which is exactly the reason defence needs supply.Stevo 666 wrote:Also there is simply to comparison between steel and defence. They are to very different things. Defence as common sense dictates is something a country has to own and have full control over. Steel is a raw material that can be bought and sold like other raw materials. To simplify a bit, in modern global economy, you produce some things and sell them to other countries: other countries produce other things and sell them to you. Specialisation in what we are best at if you like. No country is truly self sufficient because they don't need to be unless you are in war/siege situation.
We don't need control if there is no possibility. But then we won't need defence or Trident either.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I'm not going to get into another rambling general debate about how good/bad the UK is. I have posted my evidence on most of the areas where I disagree with you, although despite your claim to want thing to be better, your mindset is still negative - your list contains all of your perceived negatives about the UK and none of the positives. Just something to consider finchy - as I often find there is a correlation between positive thinking and future success.finchy wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:On the first point, what do you think the state can realistically do in this case? It can't magic jobs out of thin air. I think you may overestimate what is feasible for the state to do.
How about diverting some of that money they're about to p1ss away on forcing all schools to become academies (despite the fact that a cross-bench inquiry found no evidence that the academies programme has driven up standards)? Or if they really feel that the plant isn't worth saving, what about infrastructure works in the region, to soak up some of the unemployed workers? Now that the Tories have finally accepted that borrowing money for infrastructure spending might actually be a good idea, I'm sure you'd have no objection to that.Stevo 666 wrote:On the second point, you can also look at number of people in work - also at a record high and harder to fudge. I know it's hard to swallow good news under a tory govt. but good news it is.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/uklabourmarket/march2016#employment
The difference between unemployment rate and people in work is that unemployment rate counts people who are out of work and looking, whereas number of people in work counts people who are working, not taking into consideration why they are/are not working. So if, for example, somebody decides that they want to take early retirement, or take time off work to bring up their children, they will count as somebody who is out of work (but not in the unemployment figures). If, on the other hand, people feel like they can't do that because of economic circumstances (for example if property prices or rents are too high for families to survive on one wage), then they might be forced back into work unwillingly. That is why unemployment rates are a better indicator of economic health than the number of people who are in work - it gives a clearer picture of how the economy is benefiting or hurting people. I'm not saying that unemployment hasn't fallen (it has), I'm just saying that the government (whether Labour or Tory) should stop f**king about with the benefits system and how unemployment is counted, so we can have clear, consistent figures.
As for not wanting good economic news, I'm self-employed, of course I want good economic news. I'm also going to be graduating this October and looking to start a new career, so again I want the employment situation to be advantageous to me for at least another year or two. Do you think I want my family to suffer, just to spite the Tories?
However, even the Daily Torygraph have now run out of "everything is brilliant under the Tory government" articles to print. We're in choppy waters, just waiting for the storm to hit. If it could be delayed a couple of years, that would be absolutely brilliant for me, but I fear that's not going to happen.
Anyway, just to clarify (yet again), I don't pin all the blame on one party or the other. The situation we see today has been decades in the making, and our economy is hamstrung by factors such as:
- an education system which turns out vast numbers of students every year with no worthwhile qualifications
- lower productivity than many of our rivals
- short-termist thinking
- under-investment
- high inequality and low social mobility
- a high current account deficit - one of the worst in the developed world
- failing public services
- high levels of personal debt
- a generally unhealthy population
I've posted links regarding most, if not all of these issues before, and argued as to why they are a problem, so I'm not going to go looking for links or making the same old arguments to prove my points all over again, if it means that much to you, you can wade through 89 pages of posts, but I hope for your sake that you've got better things to do with your time than that.
As for diverting money away from academies? Apart from the fact that the ones round my way are doing very well or improving standards, what exactly would you do with that money to help those affected by the current situation with Tata? There is always talk of 'infrastructure' but what exactly is there in South Wales that you think that needs investing in on the 'infrastructure' front? Without addressing a real need that sounds suspiciously like state job creation schemes that achieve little but keep people officially employed.
There is already plenty of infrastructure investment I see - Crossrail 2, huge Thames water super sewer project, tube line extensions, Northern motorway and rail upgrades etc. And we are borrowing to do those..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You are assuming that China will achieve that globally. Big assumption to make and another negative mindset example.PBlakeney wrote:
That's fine as long as the supply is global.Stevo 666 wrote:What the Chinese producers can charge for steel is mainly hampered by supply and demand. There is massive oversupply, particularly in China - compared to overall demand in China and globally. Laws of supply and demand mean low prices. And likely to stay that was as apparently China still has more capacity in the process of construction which cannot be turned off at the flick of a switch.
Once China has control of supply they can control that balance and charge as they see fit. They won't mind if their steel is cheap."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Take a look at China's business plan.Stevo 666 wrote:You are assuming that China will achieve that globally. Big assumption to make and another negative mindset example.
Not only where they are selling to, but companies they control internationally.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Got a link to their business plan so I can take a look? Preferably not from a paranoid conspiracy theory website.PBlakeney wrote:
Take a look at China's business plan.Stevo 666 wrote:You are assuming that China will achieve that globally. Big assumption to make and another negative mindset example.
Not only where they are selling to, but companies they control internationally.
Their steel industry has major issues and is racking up huge losses BTW - they trying to cut back. It's a global problem and they have the largest share of it.
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/chinas-steel-industry-is-racking-up-enormous-losses-2016-1
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-29/china-s-steel-mills-see-widening-losses-as-supply-exceeds-demand
Supply and demand applies to all, even China."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
You are assuming that China will achieve that globally. Big assumption to make and another negative mindset example.PBlakeney wrote:
That's fine as long as the supply is global.Stevo 666 wrote:What the Chinese producers can charge for steel is mainly hampered by supply and demand. There is massive oversupply, particularly in China - compared to overall demand in China and globally. Laws of supply and demand mean low prices. And likely to stay that was as apparently China still has more capacity in the process of construction which cannot be turned off at the flick of a switch.
Once China has control of supply they can control that balance and charge as they see fit. They won't mind if their steel is cheap.
China might come out of its recession and turn into a nice cuddly democracy, equally it might implode in to social unrest, its something their leaders are only too worried about and crack downs on any form of free speech are increasing, even in Hongkong.
You seem to take a very short term view of the world and its continued relative peace, or problems that we might face over the next 50 years or so, Global warming being a huge unknown, history would show that things can change rapidly, its not negative to prepare for different scenarios.... good and bad, being over optimistic can be equally foolish.
an example of short term thinking "lets make the NHS etc buy UK steel for new builds etc" huh? anything being built in the next year or 2 has already procured the materials needed, and as its all done via contractors it just smoke and mirrors from a Gov hopelessly on the back foot over this.0 -
mamba80 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
You are assuming that China will achieve that globally. Big assumption to make and another negative mindset example.PBlakeney wrote:
That's fine as long as the supply is global.Stevo 666 wrote:What the Chinese producers can charge for steel is mainly hampered by supply and demand. There is massive oversupply, particularly in China - compared to overall demand in China and globally. Laws of supply and demand mean low prices. And likely to stay that was as apparently China still has more capacity in the process of construction which cannot be turned off at the flick of a switch.
Once China has control of supply they can control that balance and charge as they see fit. They won't mind if their steel is cheap.
China might come out of its recession and turn into a nice cuddly democracy, equally it might implode in to social unrest, its something their leaders are only too worried about and crack downs on any form of free speech are increasing, even in Hongkong.
You seem to take a very short term view of the world and its continued relative peace, or problems that we might face over the next 50 years or so, Global warming being a huge unknown, history would show that things can change rapidly, its not negative to prepare for different scenarios.... good and bad, being over optimistic can be equally foolish.
an example of short term thinking "lets make the NHS etc buy UK steel for new builds etc" huh? anything being built in the next year or 2 has already procured the materials needed, and as its all done via contractors it just smoke and mirrors from a Gov hopelessly on the back foot over this.
Says a man who would scrap Trident because there is no threat this weekend. 0 -
No, its that i take a longer term view, what if churchill and hitler both had nuc's and used them after dunkirk? non of us would be here and humanity would have ended in 1940.
i dont think any threat is worth destroying the world for and in anycase, we d never use them without US permission, by which time our little stock pile would nt matter.
but it would be ironic though, UK subs built with chinese steel going to war against the chinese :shock:
Any how, answer the points on steel Bally instead of a swerve ball
0 -
Get a room!
Bring back the cakestop of old0 -
Ballysmate wrote:
Says a man who would scrap Trident because there is no threat this weekend.
Mamba, again you are imagining things and putting words into my mouth. China and steel are not the only issues we face in the next 50 years.
In case you weren't aware, over 90% of certain rare earth metals needed in electronics manufacturing are produced in China. Maybe you should get on your soap box about that as well, before it's too late
Or else get busy making us self sufficient in everything. A world first!"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You still haven't answered my question about which pop star is in my avatarAlain Quay wrote:Get a room!
Bring back the cakestop of old "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
That tells us that the Chinese game plan is to secure enough raw material resources to feed their economic expansion. A defensive policy if anything. Only they have overestimated how much steel they need - massively - and are producing way more than domestic demand. Which is why they are trying to flog it over here. It does not appear to be some Dr. Evil style plot to dominate the world steel market.PBlakeney wrote:"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:Ballysmate wrote:
Says a man who would scrap Trident because there is no threat this weekend.
Mamba, again you are imagining things and putting words into my mouth. China and steel are not the only issues we face in the next 50 years.
In case you weren't aware, over 90% of certain rare earth metals needed in electronics manufacturing are produced in China.
Steve - either/or - 0 lol!
the thread is now about steel not electronics but yes your right, now i know why my daughters Iphone costs so much! those bl00dy Chinese dominating the market, charging what they like!
We do face many issues, like how to return cake stop to its original purpose? that should take about 50 years!
btw what was its original purpose Alain?0 -
mamba80 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:Ballysmate wrote:
Says...China.
Steve...We do face many issues, like how to return cake stop to its original purpose? that should take about 50 years!
btw what was its original purpose Alain?
To talk bollox. Nothing's changed really.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Good to see you focussing on the big issues mambamamba80 wrote:the thread is now about steel not electronics but yes your right, now i know why my daughters Iphone costs so much! those bl00dy Chinese dominating the market, charging what they like!
We do face many issues, like how to return cake stop to its original purpose? that should take about 50 years!
btw what was its original purpose Alain?
Whatever Cake Stop used to be for, it definitely wasn't pop trivia
Fyi Bottom Bracket is now the preferred location for talking bollox. The biggest poster in BB really should know that "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Pinno wrote:mamba80 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:Ballysmate wrote:
Says...China.
Steve...We do face many issues, like how to return cake stop to its original purpose? that should take about 50 years!
btw what was its original purpose Alain?
To talk bollox. Nothing's changed really.
i guess this thread has sort of taken over because other people are not posting enough controversial topics to push it onto page 9 ? that and the protagonists dont want to give up!!!! its all abit pointless really as steve0 will never see the true way to salvation.
steve0..have you seen the price of those fuggin IPhones!!!! you d not be so flippant!0 -
Not on the nuclear issue, but this is how the tories look after us. The French, Italians and others wanted to implace tariffs in europe on chinese steel. Cameron blocked it on the grounds the free market should take its course. He and his government are a bunch of cnuts, and they don't give a flying f**k about the ordinary man.
£45billion bailed out RBS, losing a £1,000,000 a day would keep Port Talbot open for about 123 year.
But not too many at the steel works rub shoulders with good old Dave or Sajid David.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Savid javid (another well known leftie) says he wants to support Steel and doesnt want to live in a country where we import all our steel and is willing to spend tax payers money on the industry.....
so steve0, is he wrong?0 -
I got the phone for diddly squat when I signed my last contract. They even chucked in the tablet that I'm typing on now. Result - may go for a Chinese to celebrate.mamba80 wrote:Pinno wrote:mamba80 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:Ballysmate wrote:
Says...China.
Steve...We do face many issues, like how to return cake stop to its original purpose? that should take about 50 years!
btw what was its original purpose Alain?
To talk bollox. Nothing's changed really.
i guess this thread has sort of taken over because other people are not posting enough controversial topics to push it onto page 9 ? that and the protagonists dont want to give up!!!! its all abit pointless really as steve0 will never see the true way to salvation.
steve0..have you seen the price of those fuggin IPhones!!!! you d not be so flippant!"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I got the phone for diddly squat when I signed my last contract. They even chucked in the tablet that I'm typing on now. Result - may go for a Chinese to celebrate.[/quote]Stevo 666 wrote:steve0..have you seen the price of those fuggin IPhones!!!! you d not be so flippant!
i tried to get the daughter on the company pay role but they aint into child labour, though of course that might change IF the tories win again.
i d recommend you go to Hongkong and buy a few books on democracy, you might end up in a longer stay than intended lol!0
