Energy thread

focuszing723

kingstongraham said:

focuszing723 said:

.

kingstongraham said:

focuszing723 said:

We've got a tab of £500,000,000,000 for Covid too. Can somebody who has an ounce of effort left in them post up what the UK's current debt level is? Also a picture of the biggest can they can find, preferably looking like it's going to explode at any moment.

You need to explore AI image generation

Blimey, nice, in a non-nice kind of way.

I asked for the panicked crowd to be running away from the massive can, but it's not done bad.

Yeah, it's not bad. Kind of captures the enormity of the situation.

rick_chasey

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Possible small catch in the last sentence of the second paragraph, as I'm sure the definition of 'rich' will be pretty broad if they want to get enough money in.

Assumed that would be higher rate payers as an easy identifier.

So that would be quite broad as it covers everyone making over £50k a year. Seem to recall seeing in the news recently that a good proportion of people earning close to that amount might need help with their bills...
https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/27/people-earning-45000-could-struggle-with-bills-says-chancellor

tto

Certainly no point robbing Peter to pay Paul

I just posted something to the same effect.

On the hand, no different to receiving child benefit and then getting it taxed back.

But as above, what's the point?

You just said above that there's no point robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Allows for relatively straightforward tax collection then the Gov can target assistance to whoever needs it most.

As I said above we already do it, unless you are proposing a complete overhaul of the system?

Still pointless to take away with one hand to give back with the other, as mentioned.

Yes because the pie is shrinking. Someone had to lose out somewhere.

So going back to my question above, why not borrow?

Because it’s getting quite expensive? Quite quickly.

A lot of borrowing will be going on anyway given the recession.

You never seemed to think interest rates rising would be a problem before when people were pointing out they were unnaturally low and likely to rise.

The argument I made then and make now is borrowing when it’s cheap makes sense.

Borrowing when it’s expensive doesn’t.

And the point everyone else was making was that history suggested those rates were going to rise therefore resulting in the costs increasing.

Sure but you’ve locked in the savings at that point.

If the govt borrows at .25 over 10 years that’s the interest, right? It’s the fixed income asset class for a reason.

(Yes you get linkers etc but it’s still cheaper to borrow when rates are cheap and not expensive)

focuszing723

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Possible small catch in the last sentence of the second paragraph, as I'm sure the definition of 'rich' will be pretty broad if they want to get enough money in.

Assumed that would be higher rate payers as an easy identifier.

So that would be quite broad as it covers everyone making over £50k a year. Seem to recall seeing in the news recently that a good proportion of people earning close to that amount might need help with their bills...
https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/27/people-earning-45000-could-struggle-with-bills-says-chancellor

tto

Certainly no point robbing Peter to pay Paul

I just posted something to the same effect.

On the hand, no different to receiving child benefit and then getting it taxed back.

But as above, what's the point?

You just said above that there's no point robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Allows for relatively straightforward tax collection then the Gov can target assistance to whoever needs it most.

As I said above we already do it, unless you are proposing a complete overhaul of the system?

Still pointless to take away with one hand to give back with the other, as mentioned.

Yes because the pie is shrinking. Someone had to lose out somewhere.

So going back to my question above, why not borrow?

Because it’s getting quite expensive? Quite quickly.

A lot of borrowing will be going on anyway given the recession.

You never seemed to think interest rates rising would be a problem before when people were pointing out they were unnaturally low and likely to rise.

The argument I made then and make now is borrowing when it’s cheap makes sense.

Borrowing when it’s expensive doesn’t.

And the point everyone else was making was that history suggested those rates were going to rise therefore resulting in the costs increasing.

Can I post my historic interest rate charts for the FED and BoE?

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Possible small catch in the last sentence of the second paragraph, as I'm sure the definition of 'rich' will be pretty broad if they want to get enough money in.

Assumed that would be higher rate payers as an easy identifier.

So that would be quite broad as it covers everyone making over £50k a year. Seem to recall seeing in the news recently that a good proportion of people earning close to that amount might need help with their bills...
https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/27/people-earning-45000-could-struggle-with-bills-says-chancellor

tto

Certainly no point robbing Peter to pay Paul

I just posted something to the same effect.

On the hand, no different to receiving child benefit and then getting it taxed back.

But as above, what's the point?

You just said above that there's no point robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Allows for relatively straightforward tax collection then the Gov can target assistance to whoever needs it most.

As I said above we already do it, unless you are proposing a complete overhaul of the system?

Still pointless to take away with one hand to give back with the other, as mentioned.

Yes because the pie is shrinking. Someone had to lose out somewhere.

So going back to my question above, why not borrow?

If you are now accepting mmt as an option, you might want to know about what it says in an inflationary environment.

No, Im asking Rick why not.

Stevo_666

focuszing723 said:

We've got a tab of £500,000,000,000 for Covid too. Can somebody who has an ounce of effort left in them post up what the UK's current debt level is? Also a picture of the biggest can they can find, preferably looking like it's going to explode at any moment.

Not a pic, but this is quite a good debt chart:
https://usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Possible small catch in the last sentence of the second paragraph, as I'm sure the definition of 'rich' will be pretty broad if they want to get enough money in.

Assumed that would be higher rate payers as an easy identifier.

So that would be quite broad as it covers everyone making over £50k a year. Seem to recall seeing in the news recently that a good proportion of people earning close to that amount might need help with their bills...
https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/27/people-earning-45000-could-struggle-with-bills-says-chancellor

tto

Certainly no point robbing Peter to pay Paul

I just posted something to the same effect.

On the hand, no different to receiving child benefit and then getting it taxed back.

But as above, what's the point?

You just said above that there's no point robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Allows for relatively straightforward tax collection then the Gov can target assistance to whoever needs it most.

As I said above we already do it, unless you are proposing a complete overhaul of the system?

Still pointless to take away with one hand to give back with the other, as mentioned.

Yes because the pie is shrinking. Someone had to lose out somewhere.

So going back to my question above, why not borrow?

Because it’s getting quite expensive? Quite quickly.

A lot of borrowing will be going on anyway given the recession.

That's quite something for you to concede that there are downsides to debt.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Possible small catch in the last sentence of the second paragraph, as I'm sure the definition of 'rich' will be pretty broad if they want to get enough money in.

Assumed that would be higher rate payers as an easy identifier.

So that would be quite broad as it covers everyone making over £50k a year. Seem to recall seeing in the news recently that a good proportion of people earning close to that amount might need help with their bills...
https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/27/people-earning-45000-could-struggle-with-bills-says-chancellor

tto

Certainly no point robbing Peter to pay Paul

I just posted something to the same effect.

On the hand, no different to receiving child benefit and then getting it taxed back.

But as above, what's the point?

You just said above that there's no point robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Allows for relatively straightforward tax collection then the Gov can target assistance to whoever needs it most.

As I said above we already do it, unless you are proposing a complete overhaul of the system?

Still pointless to take away with one hand to give back with the other, as mentioned.

Yes because the pie is shrinking. Someone had to lose out somewhere.

So going back to my question above, why not borrow?

Because it’s getting quite expensive? Quite quickly.

A lot of borrowing will be going on anyway given the recession.

You never seemed to think interest rates rising would be a problem before when people were pointing out they were unnaturally low and likely to rise.

The argument I made then and make now is borrowing when it’s cheap makes sense.

Borrowing when it’s expensive doesn’t.

And the point everyone else was making was that history suggested those rates were going to rise therefore resulting in the costs increasing.

Sure but you’ve locked in the savings at that point.

If the govt borrows at .25 over 10 years that’s the interest, right? It’s the fixed income asset class for a reason.

(Yes you get linkers etc but it’s still cheaper to borrow when rates are cheap and not expensive)

OnLy if you are going to pay the debt off within 10 years. If you roll it over your average cost of debt will go up.

I am sure we are in the top 5 countries for % of index linked debt so that is a huge proviso

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

How many people are in the 40% bracket? About 4 and a half million.

Why not just borrow the money? As you've explained before there's no real limit to national debt.

So I am all for borrowing to improve growth & productivity, right?

That pays for itself many times over. Absolute numbers don't matter, doubly so when you're growing.

Alas, a decade and a half of no growth has rather blunted the ability to borrow down the road.

A lot of borrowing will be happening anyway as we are going to go into a pretty chunky recession, so I doubt there is that much room left over, without better evidence that there is growth at the end of the tunnel.

So far, there are very few indicators that Britain can shake off the productivity problem.

On this note, rates on gilts rose at their fastest in 35 years today.

In the same way I was saying that markets were telling the govt to borrow more when rates were low, as rates go higher the markets are saying we want you to borrow less.

rates were only low becuase the Govt did QE to the equivalent amount they were borrowing.

I feel the penny may finally be starting to drop

This is just nonsense.

Check the figures, it really is not nonsense.

As we borrowed record sums as our economy cratered do you really think the markets thought our credit rating improved

focuszing723

Stevo_666 said:

focuszing723 said:

We've got a tab of £500,000,000,000 for Covid too. Can somebody who has an ounce of effort left in them post up what the UK's current debt level is? Also a picture of the biggest can they can find, preferably looking like it's going to explode at any moment.

Not a pic, but this is quite a good debt chart:
https://usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html

Cheers.

Fvckitydoodar. I hope Truss has a cunning plan. It would have to be intergalactically spectacular in terms of it's cunningness though.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

How many people are in the 40% bracket? About 4 and a half million.

Why not just borrow the money? As you've explained before there's no real limit to national debt.

So I am all for borrowing to improve growth & productivity, right?

That pays for itself many times over. Absolute numbers don't matter, doubly so when you're growing.

Alas, a decade and a half of no growth has rather blunted the ability to borrow down the road.

A lot of borrowing will be happening anyway as we are going to go into a pretty chunky recession, so I doubt there is that much room left over, without better evidence that there is growth at the end of the tunnel.

So far, there are very few indicators that Britain can shake off the productivity problem.

On this note, rates on gilts rose at their fastest in 35 years today.

In the same way I was saying that markets were telling the govt to borrow more when rates were low, as rates go higher the markets are saying we want you to borrow less.

rates were only low becuase the Govt did QE to the equivalent amount they were borrowing.

I feel the penny may finally be starting to drop

This is just nonsense.

Check the figures, it really is not nonsense.

As we borrowed record sums as our economy cratered do you really think the markets thought our credit rating improved

What does QE have to do with it? They wanted to heat up the economy without pulling fiscal levers and rates were near zero.

That’s all QE does.

In a 10-20% inflationary world the monetary policy committee doesn’t want to heat up the economy.

The gilt market isn’t looking so rosey because of the incoming recession.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

How many people are in the 40% bracket? About 4 and a half million.

Why not just borrow the money? As you've explained before there's no real limit to national debt.

So I am all for borrowing to improve growth & productivity, right?

That pays for itself many times over. Absolute numbers don't matter, doubly so when you're growing.

Alas, a decade and a half of no growth has rather blunted the ability to borrow down the road.

A lot of borrowing will be happening anyway as we are going to go into a pretty chunky recession, so I doubt there is that much room left over, without better evidence that there is growth at the end of the tunnel.

So far, there are very few indicators that Britain can shake off the productivity problem.

On this note, rates on gilts rose at their fastest in 35 years today.

In the same way I was saying that markets were telling the govt to borrow more when rates were low, as rates go higher the markets are saying we want you to borrow less.

I don't think that is true. Source?

https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/surging-energy-prices-create-perfect-storm-uk-bonds-2022-08-30/

Since that was published yield on 10 year rose.



Sterling also at 30 year low

Massive changes over the last few weeks, but not today which is what you said

pangolin

Yawn there is an economy thread for this.

Good news, Liz says no new taxes and no energy rationing. That's fine then.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62746386

pangolin

"Would you cut VAT from 20% to 15%?"

"I am not sitting here writing a future budget."

It's not like this has been sprung on you... you've had months to think about it.

TheBigBean

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

Possible small catch in the last sentence of the second paragraph, as I'm sure the definition of 'rich' will be pretty broad if they want to get enough money in.

you are right, let's go back to doing nothing

What happened to your belief in free markets?

reading that article it suggests the problem is caused by Govt intervention in the market

Not sure that is really the case.

well somebody set up the system where we have ended up paying for all electricity at the price it costs to generate it burning gas.

In simplistic terms we are not getting the benefit of the low prices for renewables

This is like finding out the pope doesn't believe in god.

Supply and demand set a market price. This is not set by the marginal cost of production for every participant in the market. This isn't specific to the energy industry.

TheBigBean

Anyone want to sell their house for the marginal cost of doing so?

pblakeney

pangolin said:

"Would you cut VAT from 20% to 15%?"

"I am not sitting here writing a future budget."

It's not like this has been sprung on you... you've had months to think about it.

Easy interpretation, "We will not be announcing our 2023-24 budget in November as normal during the full impact of this cost of living crisis. Wait until March".

November is only 2 months away. The next budget is going to be very interesting.

sungod

kingstongraham said:

focuszing723 said:

.

kingstongraham said:

focuszing723 said:

We've got a tab of £500,000,000,000 for Covid too. Can somebody who has an ounce of effort left in them post up what the UK's current debt level is? Also a picture of the biggest can they can find, preferably looking like it's going to explode at any moment.

You need to explore AI image generation

Blimey, nice, in a non-nice kind of way.

I asked for the panicked crowd to be running away from the massive can, but it's not done bad.

the massive can is behind them, they're running towards the great can of hope

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean said:

Anyone want to sell their house for the marginal cost of doing so?

how about you are buying a flat on a new build estate and the price you pay is decided by the amount paid for the most expensive property sold that year?

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

Possible small catch in the last sentence of the second paragraph, as I'm sure the definition of 'rich' will be pretty broad if they want to get enough money in.

you are right, let's go back to doing nothing

What happened to your belief in free markets?

reading that article it suggests the problem is caused by Govt intervention in the market

Not sure that is really the case.

well somebody set up the system where we have ended up paying for all electricity at the price it costs to generate it burning gas.

In simplistic terms we are not getting the benefit of the low prices for renewables

This is like finding out the pope doesn't believe in god.

Supply and demand set a market price. This is not set by the marginal cost of production for every participant in the market. This isn't specific to the energy industry.

maybe I don't understand it but that article seems to say that we have contracts to gtee a fixed price we buy electricity from renewable suppliers. No matter what they produce or how low the market price that is what we pay.

But in a bizarre heads they win, tails we lose agreement if the spot price of gas is above that gteed price then they get that instead.

20% of our electricity generation is from gas yet we have put in place a pricing mechanism which means that 100% (if this figure is only 80% the point still stands) of our electricity generation is priced on gas.

as I say that is my understanding of the problem and why I see it as a failure of state intervention in the free market.

kingstongraham

I quite like the idea from the OVO guy - subsidise energy for households up to a limit, then more expensive over that, with targeted support for special cases where needed on top of that.

pblakeney

kingstongraham said:

I quite like the idea from the OVO guy - subsidise energy for households up to a limit, then more expensive over that, with targeted support for special cases where needed on top of that.

A good starting point for discussion but basing things on declared income is a bit wooly at both ends of the income scale.

Pross

kingstongraham said:

I quite like the idea from the OVO guy - subsidise energy for households up to a limit, then more expensive over that, with targeted support for special cases where needed on top of that.

Is that subsidising it up to a certain amount of usage? If so that seems a good idea on several levels.

surrey_commuter

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

I quite like the idea from the OVO guy - subsidise energy for households up to a limit, then more expensive over that, with targeted support for special cases where needed on top of that.

A good starting point for discussion but basing things on declared income is a bit wooly at both ends of the income scale.

Perfect is the enemy of good

pblakeney

surrey_commuter said:

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

I quite like the idea from the OVO guy - subsidise energy for households up to a limit, then more expensive over that, with targeted support for special cases where needed on top of that.

A good starting point for discussion but basing things on declared income is a bit wooly at both ends of the income scale.

Perfect is the enemy of good

True. I'm just preempting the arguments against.

TheBigBean

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

Anyone want to sell their house for the marginal cost of doing so?

how about you are buying a flat on a new build estate and the price you pay is decided by the amount paid for the most expensive property sold that year?

They're all selling the same amount of power, so the the exact same properties in your example.

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

I quite like the idea from the OVO guy - subsidise energy for households up to a limit, then more expensive over that, with targeted support for special cases where needed on top of that.

A good starting point for discussion but basing things on declared income is a bit wooly at both ends of the income scale.

Perfect is the enemy of good

True. I'm just preempting the arguments against.

There is a bigger challenge in that there is not enough gas to go around at last year's consumption rate, so you need the prices high enough to stop people using more gas than necessary, but not so much you impoverish them.

So I suspect if you do a Starmer style intervention, you then have to follow it up with energy rationing.

TheBigBean

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

Possible small catch in the last sentence of the second paragraph, as I'm sure the definition of 'rich' will be pretty broad if they want to get enough money in.

you are right, let's go back to doing nothing

What happened to your belief in free markets?

reading that article it suggests the problem is caused by Govt intervention in the market

Not sure that is really the case.

well somebody set up the system where we have ended up paying for all electricity at the price it costs to generate it burning gas.

In simplistic terms we are not getting the benefit of the low prices for renewables

This is like finding out the pope doesn't believe in god.

Supply and demand set a market price. This is not set by the marginal cost of production for every participant in the market. This isn't specific to the energy industry.

maybe I don't understand it but that article seems to say that we have contracts to gtee a fixed price we buy electricity from renewable suppliers. No matter what they produce or how low the market price that is what we pay.

But in a bizarre heads they win, tails we lose agreement if the spot price of gas is above that gteed price then they get that instead.

20% of our electricity generation is from gas yet we have put in place a pricing mechanism which means that 100% (if this figure is only 80% the point still stands) of our electricity generation is priced on gas.

as I say that is my understanding of the problem and why I see it as a failure of state intervention in the free market.

The first bit is not true. There are negative pricing periods for example. Renewable generators that are selling at market price are exposed to the full variance. It is actually worse for wind though as pricing gets "cannibalised", because lots of wind means lots of supply, so lower pricing.

It is true that gas pricing accounts for much of the pricing short term. You could blame the government for phasing out coal, so that no longer competes. Renewables are capital intensive things, so the cost of production is frontended, but based on 20 years of power price forecasts.

blazing_saddles

Further to the electric blanket tip of a few days ago.
Get down to yer local Lidl's and snag today's bargain: a Silentnight snugsie (wearable blanket for the uninitiated) for just £12-99.



(The girl costs extra)

kingstongraham

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

I quite like the idea from the OVO guy - subsidise energy for households up to a limit, then more expensive over that, with targeted support for special cases where needed on top of that.

A good starting point for discussion but basing things on declared income is a bit wooly at both ends of the income scale.

There is nothing about declared income in the proposal. Or anything about income, directly.

As Pross says, it's a proposal to subsidise up to a certain amount of usage per household. More percentage benefit to those who already spend less on energy, and also encourages a reduction in energy use.

pblakeney

kingstongraham said:

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

I quite like the idea from the OVO guy - subsidise energy for households up to a limit, then more expensive over that, with targeted support for special cases where needed on top of that.

A good starting point for discussion but basing things on declared income is a bit wooly at both ends of the income scale.

There is nothing about declared income in the proposal. Or anything about income, directly.

As Pross says, it's a proposal to subsidise up to a certain amount of usage per household. More percentage benefit to those who already spend less on energy, and also encourages a reduction in energy use.

"Ovo Energy founder Stephen Fitzpatrick said under the scheme the poorest households would get the most support.
Higher earners would see the amount of help taper off as they used more energy."

How else do they know who is poor and who is a high earner?