Discussion:
The reason why Uk's utilities should be nationalised with no compensation .
(too old to reply)
Keema's Nan
2020-07-01 17:11:38 UTC
Permalink
Water companies in England discharged raw sewage into rivers on more than
200,000 occasions last year, according to data obtained by the Guardian.

The analysis reveals untreated human waste was released into streams and
rivers for more than 1.5m hours in 2019.

The figures, obtained via environmental information requests, trace releases
of sewage from storm drains in rivers across England by all nine water
companies and provide a comprehensive picture of the scale of pollution from
what critics say is the routine dumping of untreated sewage.

Popular English rivers including the Thames, the Windrush, which runs through
the Cotswolds and Oxfordshire, the River Chess, a chalk stream in
Buckinghamshire, the Avon in Bristol, the Severn, and the River Wharfe in
Ilkley are among the many affected.

The data emerges as increasing numbers of people are using England’s rivers
to swim, kayak and paddleboard.

Countries are legally obliged to treat sewage before it is released into
waterways. Discharges of untreated human waste are permitted only in
“exceptional circumstances” for example after extreme rainfall, the
European court of justice has ruled.

But the scale of the sewage releases in 2019 reveals what one industry
insider said was the frequent and routine nature of discharging untreated
effluent from storm overflows.

The source, who has worked in the industry for many years, said the
discharges released “a horrible septic mix of nasties into the rivers”.

He said the industry had for years ignored warnings about the growing scale
of spills from combined sewer overflows (CSOs) – storm pipes that allow
rainwater, untreated sewage and runoff to discharge into waterways.

Recent scientific research has alsoraised
(https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200506133603.htm)concerns that
Covid-19 can be carried into rivers via sewage discharges.
(https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200506133603.htm)

Guardian data reveals 6,508 inland CSOs released untreated sewage into rivers
204,134 times in 2019. The spills discharged for 1.53m hours across the nine
English water companies.

Luke Pollard, the shadow environment secretary, said: “Sewage discharges
should take place only in the most extreme of circumstances. Regulation needs
to be tightened to stop water companies using discharges as a day-to-day
measure.

“Customers will rightly be shocked at the frequency of sewage discharges
and the damage it does to some of our country’s most precious and valuable
river habitats.”

TheEnvironment Agency
(https://www.theguardian.com/environment/environment-agency)issues permits to
allow water companies to release untreated human waste, which includes
excrement, condoms and toilet paper, from CSOs after extreme weather events,
such as torrential rain, to stop water backing up and flooding homes.

More than 60 discharges a year from a storm overflow should trigger an
investigation by the agency but the data reveals some storm overflows have
released discharges hundreds of times. The Environment Agency relies on water
companies to self-monitor their CSOs.

Ashley Smith of the campaign groupWindrush against Sewage Pollution
(https://www.windrushwasp.org/)said the system was little more than a
“licence to pollute”. Smith, who monitors sewage spills on the River
Windrush in Oxfordshire, said discharges happened after just a rain shower.

He said: “The industry has been given a way to prop up failed
infrastructure and it has exploited this enthusiastically. The inability of
the Environment Agency to prosecute or even drive improvement has led us to
where we are today – in a complete shambles with pollution rife and
unchecked.”

Michelle Walker of the Rivers Trust described the data as “very
alarming”. The environmental charity worked with the Guardian’s data to
create aninteractive map (https://arcg.is/1meaXq)where you can search for
river discharges by area.

She said: “When you look at the detail, you see that some of these
locations are releasing untreated sewage hundreds of times a year, so they
are not just operating during extreme rainstorms.”

A recent study (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41545-020-0059-5)revealed
the quantity ofE colicoming out of CSOs was between 1,000 and 10,000 times
higher than that coming from treated sewage from wastewater treatment plants.

Walker said: “People think our rivers should be fit to swim in but they
don’t realise it is legal to discharge untreated raw sewage into our
rivers.”

Water companies say the spills are so diluted by rainwater and wastewater
that they do not affect the quality of the water.

Wessex Water said: “As CSOs should only operate during periods of intense
rainfall, any foul water released from them will be very dilute … Rarely is
a pollution incident attributed to a CSO operating correctly.”

Water companies were told by the government to install monitoring on the
majority of their combined sewer overflows by March 2020. But by June, the
Guardian data reveals 3,400 out of about 10,000 inland outflows owned by the
nine water companies still had no monitoring installed.

Wessex Water has fitted monitoring devices to 495 of its 1,018 CSOs that can
discharge into rivers and inland waters. Last year untreated sewage was
released 13,876 times – more than twice as often as in 2018 – with a
total duration over the year of 107,404 hours.

South West Water has monitors on 410 of its 548 inland CSOs. In 2019, sewage
was discharged from them 7,850 times over 36,149 hours.

Yorkshire Water discharged untreated sewage from the 730 inland CSOs, which
are monitored 22,906 times over 616,643 hours. Most of its 2,240 outflows
into rivers are not fitted with monitors.

Guardian data shows Southern Water released raw sewage into rivers last year
19,977 hours in 3,219 incidents.

In March, the company separately pleaded guilty to 51 pollution charges over
five years involving breaches of Environment Agency permits at treatment
plants, which included 8,400 incidents of sewage escaping.

Southern Water said: “Protecting rivers is a key part of [our] mission.”

Severn Trent has fitted monitoring devices to 1,239 of its 2,897 inland CSOs.
The monitored storm overflows discharged untreated sewage for 272,518 hours
in 2019.

The company said: “Since privatisation, Severn Trent has invested hundreds
of millions of pounds in upgrading and maintaining our CSOs to achieve
stringent river water-quality standards set by UK and European
legislation.” Severn Trent said it had installed monitoring on more than
80% of CSOs.

Dr Andrew Singer, a senior scientist at the UK Centre for Ecology and
Hydrology, said the pollution impact of CSO discharge was a risk to
ecological and human health.

“English rivers, even the Thames and the Severn, are relatively small, so
the contribution of CSOs to many of our rivers can be extremely
significant,” he said. “Rivers are much more likely to be impacted now by
CSOs because of the increase in population density and the fact that the
sewage system has not expanded to meet it.”

Singer called for more transparency from water companies.

A spokesperson for Wessex Water said: “In an ideal world there would not be
a combined sewerage system, but many sewers were laid at a time when only one
drain served a property – carrying both rainwater and sewage … Since 2000
we have invested £181m to upgrade more than 582 CSOs, and there are plans to
improve more over the next five years.”

The Environment Agency could not say whether any of the 1.5m hours of spills
had led to an investigation.

A spokesperson said: “The sewage system is designed to overflow to relieve
pressure on the system – discharges from CSOs are not a sign the system is
faulty or being misused.

“However, when companies do damage the environment, whether it is through
polluting our waters or breaching permit conditions, we will take enforcement
action against them including civil sanctions.”

The spokesperson said there was more to do to improve water quality, despite
substantial improvements over the past two decades. “We have already
secured a more robust and consistent approach for water and sewerage
companies to monitor CSO spills.”

A spokesperson for the industry body Water UK, said: “The water industry is
committed to the very highest environmental standards … Although there is
currently no simple and effective alternative to overflows, there are some
innovative solutions being used, such as sustainable drainage systems, which
are natural features that help keep rainwater out of the sewer. In new
housing developments, these can help to take some of the pressure off the
sewer network.”
c***@gmail.com
2020-07-01 17:24:12 UTC
Permalink
It's a measure of where we are as a country that the suppliers of essential services (water, gas, electricity) are allowed to make a profit on the supply of basic needs.
Keema's Nan
2020-07-01 17:29:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
It's a measure of where we are as a country that the suppliers of essential
services (water, gas, electricity) are allowed to make a profit on the supply
of basic needs.
'Making a profit' is rather an understatement.

English water companies have handed more than £2bn a year on average to
shareholders since they were privatised three decades ago, according to
analysis for the Guardian.

The payouts in dividends to shareholders of parent companies between 1991 and
2019 amount to £57bn – nearly half the sum they spent on maintaining and
improving the country’s pipes and treatment plants in that period.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/01/england-privatised-water-
firms-dividends-shareholders

I think the 'snouts in the trough' shareholders have filled themselves full
to bursting with cash, so they should not complain when their magic money
tree is chopped down in front of them.
JNugent
2020-07-02 00:35:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
It's a measure of where we are as a country that the suppliers of essential services (water, gas, electricity) are allowed to make a profit on the supply of basic needs.
Have you ever thought of complaining about the suppliers of such a basic
need as food being allowed (??) to make a profit?

If not, why not?
RH156RH
2020-07-01 18:25:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Water companies in England discharged raw sewage into rivers on more than
200,000 occasions last year, according to data obtained by the Guardian.
The analysis reveals untreated human waste was released into streams and
rivers for more than 1.5m hours in 2019.
The figures, obtained via environmental information requests, trace releases
of sewage from storm drains in rivers across England by all nine water
companies and provide a comprehensive picture of the scale of pollution from
what critics say is the routine dumping of untreated sewage.
Popular English rivers including the Thames, the Windrush, which runs through
the Cotswolds and Oxfordshire, the River Chess, a chalk stream in
Buckinghamshire, the Avon in Bristol, the Severn, and the River Wharfe in
Ilkley are among the many affected.
The data emerges as increasing numbers of people are using England’s rivers
to swim, kayak and paddleboard.
Countries are legally obliged to treat sewage before it is released into
waterways. Discharges of untreated human waste are permitted only in
“exceptional circumstances” for example after extreme rainfall, the
European court of justice has ruled.
But the scale of the sewage releases in 2019 reveals what one industry
insider said was the frequent and routine nature of discharging untreated
effluent from storm overflows.
The source, who has worked in the industry for many years, said the
discharges released “a horrible septic mix of nasties into the rivers”.
He said the industry had for years ignored warnings about the growing scale
of spills from combined sewer overflows (CSOs) – storm pipes that allow
rainwater, untreated sewage and runoff to discharge into waterways.
Recent scientific research has alsoraised
(https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200506133603.htm)concerns that
Covid-19 can be carried into rivers via sewage discharges.
(https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200506133603.htm)
Guardian data reveals 6,508 inland CSOs released untreated sewage into rivers
204,134 times in 2019. The spills discharged for 1.53m hours across the nine
English water companies.
Luke Pollard, the shadow environment secretary, said: “Sewage discharges
should take place only in the most extreme of circumstances. Regulation needs
to be tightened to stop water companies using discharges as a day-to-day
measure.
“Customers will rightly be shocked at the frequency of sewage discharges
and the damage it does to some of our country’s most precious and valuable
river habitats.”
TheEnvironment Agency
(https://www.theguardian.com/environment/environment-agency)issues permits to
allow water companies to release untreated human waste, which includes
excrement, condoms and toilet paper, from CSOs after extreme weather events,
such as torrential rain, to stop water backing up and flooding homes.
More than 60 discharges a year from a storm overflow should trigger an
investigation by the agency but the data reveals some storm overflows have
released discharges hundreds of times. The Environment Agency relies on water
companies to self-monitor their CSOs.
Ashley Smith of the campaign groupWindrush against Sewage Pollution
(https://www.windrushwasp.org/)said the system was little more than a
“licence to pollute”. Smith, who monitors sewage spills on the River
Windrush in Oxfordshire, said discharges happened after just a rain shower.
He said: “The industry has been given a way to prop up failed
infrastructure and it has exploited this enthusiastically. The inability of
the Environment Agency to prosecute or even drive improvement has led us to
where we are today – in a complete shambles with pollution rife and
unchecked.”
Michelle Walker of the Rivers Trust described the data as “very
alarming”. The environmental charity worked with the Guardian’s data to
create aninteractive map (https://arcg.is/1meaXq)where you can search for
river discharges by area.
She said: “When you look at the detail, you see that some of these
locations are releasing untreated sewage hundreds of times a year, so they
are not just operating during extreme rainstorms.”
A recent study (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41545-020-0059-5)revealed
the quantity ofE colicoming out of CSOs was between 1,000 and 10,000 times
higher than that coming from treated sewage from wastewater treatment plants.
Walker said: “People think our rivers should be fit to swim in but they
don’t realise it is legal to discharge untreated raw sewage into our
rivers.”
Water companies say the spills are so diluted by rainwater and wastewater
that they do not affect the quality of the water.
Wessex Water said: “As CSOs should only operate during periods of intense
rainfall, any foul water released from them will be very dilute … Rarely is
a pollution incident attributed to a CSO operating correctly.”
Water companies were told by the government to install monitoring on the
majority of their combined sewer overflows by March 2020. But by June, the
Guardian data reveals 3,400 out of about 10,000 inland outflows owned by the
nine water companies still had no monitoring installed.
Wessex Water has fitted monitoring devices to 495 of its 1,018 CSOs that can
discharge into rivers and inland waters. Last year untreated sewage was
released 13,876 times – more than twice as often as in 2018 – with a
total duration over the year of 107,404 hours.
South West Water has monitors on 410 of its 548 inland CSOs. In 2019, sewage
was discharged from them 7,850 times over 36,149 hours.
Yorkshire Water discharged untreated sewage from the 730 inland CSOs, which
are monitored 22,906 times over 616,643 hours. Most of its 2,240 outflows
into rivers are not fitted with monitors.
Guardian data shows Southern Water released raw sewage into rivers last year
19,977 hours in 3,219 incidents.
In March, the company separately pleaded guilty to 51 pollution charges over
five years involving breaches of Environment Agency permits at treatment
plants, which included 8,400 incidents of sewage escaping.
Southern Water said: “Protecting rivers is a key part of [our] mission.”
Severn Trent has fitted monitoring devices to 1,239 of its 2,897 inland CSOs.
The monitored storm overflows discharged untreated sewage for 272,518 hours
in 2019.
The company said: “Since privatisation, Severn Trent has invested hundreds
of millions of pounds in upgrading and maintaining our CSOs to achieve
stringent river water-quality standards set by UK and European
legislation.” Severn Trent said it had installed monitoring on more than
80% of CSOs.
Dr Andrew Singer, a senior scientist at the UK Centre for Ecology and
Hydrology, said the pollution impact of CSO discharge was a risk to
ecological and human health.
“English rivers, even the Thames and the Severn, are relatively small, so
the contribution of CSOs to many of our rivers can be extremely
significant,” he said. “Rivers are much more likely to be impacted now by
CSOs because of the increase in population density and the fact that the
sewage system has not expanded to meet it.”
Singer called for more transparency from water companies.
A spokesperson for Wessex Water said: “In an ideal world there would not be
a combined sewerage system, but many sewers were laid at a time when only one
drain served a property – carrying both rainwater and sewage … Since 2000
we have invested £181m to upgrade more than 582 CSOs, and there are plans to
improve more over the next five years.”
The Environment Agency could not say whether any of the 1.5m hours of spills
had led to an investigation.
A spokesperson said: “The sewage system is designed to overflow to relieve
pressure on the system – discharges from CSOs are not a sign the system is
faulty or being misused.
“However, when companies do damage the environment, whether it is through
polluting our waters or breaching permit conditions, we will take enforcement
action against them including civil sanctions.”
The spokesperson said there was more to do to improve water quality, despite
substantial improvements over the past two decades. “We have already
secured a more robust and consistent approach for water and sewerage
companies to monitor CSO spills.”
A spokesperson for the industry body Water UK, said: “The water industry is
committed to the very highest environmental standards … Although there is
currently no simple and effective alternative to overflows, there are some
innovative solutions being used, such as sustainable drainage systems, which
are natural features that help keep rainwater out of the sewer. In new
housing developments, these can help to take some of the pressure off the
sewer network.”
Anything which either has the nature of a public utility or is of strategic importance, eg a steel company, should be iin public hands as a matter of national prudence,. RH
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
2020-07-01 18:39:01 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 11:25:46 -0700 (PDT), RH156RH
Post by RH156RH
Post by Keema's Nan
Water companies in England discharged raw sewage into rivers on more than
200,000 occasions last year, according to data obtained by the Guardian.
<b'rissed>
Post by RH156RH
Anything which either has the nature of a public utility or is of strategic importance, eg a steel company, should be iin public hands as a matter of national prudence,. RH
So that it can be privatised by the next government looking to make
some easy money!
abelard
2020-07-01 18:43:38 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 01 Jul 2020 11:39:01 -0700, Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 11:25:46 -0700 (PDT), RH156RH
Post by RH156RH
Post by Keema's Nan
Water companies in England discharged raw sewage into rivers on more than
200,000 occasions last year, according to data obtained by the Guardian.
<b'rissed>
Post by RH156RH
Anything which either has the nature of a public utility or is of strategic importance, eg a steel company, should be iin public hands as a matter of national prudence,. RH
So that it can be privatised by the next government looking to make
some easy money!
hatstand has you to 'get' politics
Keema's Nan
2020-07-01 19:03:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 11:25:46 -0700 (PDT), RH156RH
Post by RH156RH
Post by Keema's Nan
Water companies in England discharged raw sewage into rivers on more than
200,000 occasions last year, according to data obtained by the Guardian.
<b'rissed>
Post by RH156RH
Anything which either has the nature of a public utility or is of strategic
importance, eg a steel company, should be iin public hands as a matter of
national prudence,. RH
So that it can be privatised by the next government looking to make
some easy money!
The rules governing nationalisation could be amended to say that any moves to
privatise the industries must have a majority of at least 75% of MPs, and
then would only go ahead after a yes vote by at least 75% of the electorate
in a referendum. Any amendments to the rules must also have the 75%
majorities before they could even be considered.
abelard
2020-07-01 19:10:43 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 01 Jul 2020 20:03:34 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 11:25:46 -0700 (PDT), RH156RH
Post by RH156RH
Post by Keema's Nan
Water companies in England discharged raw sewage into rivers on more than
200,000 occasions last year, according to data obtained by the Guardian.
<b'rissed>
Post by RH156RH
Anything which either has the nature of a public utility or is of strategic
importance, eg a steel company, should be iin public hands as a matter of
national prudence,. RH
So that it can be privatised by the next government looking to make
some easy money!
The rules governing nationalisation could be amended to say that any moves to
privatise the industries must have a majority of at least 75% of MPs, and
then would only go ahead after a yes vote by at least 75% of the electorate
in a referendum. Any amendments to the rules must also have the 75%
majorities before they could even be considered.
and the next lot would overturn them
Keema's Nan
2020-07-01 19:15:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Wed, 01 Jul 2020 20:03:34 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 11:25:46 -0700 (PDT), RH156RH
Post by RH156RH
Post by Keema's Nan
Water companies in England discharged raw sewage into rivers on more than
200,000 occasions last year, according to data obtained by the Guardian.
<b'rissed>
Post by RH156RH
Anything which either has the nature of a public utility or is of strategic
importance, eg a steel company, should be iin public hands as a matter of
national prudence,. RH
So that it can be privatised by the next government looking to make
some easy money!
The rules governing nationalisation could be amended to say that any moves to
privatise the industries must have a majority of at least 75% of MPs, and
then would only go ahead after a yes vote by at least 75% of the electorate
in a referendum. Any amendments to the rules must also have the 75%
majorities before they could even be considered.
and the next lot would overturn them
Not without a 75% vote in favour, both at Westminster and national referendum
they couldn’t.

Try and keep up.
JNugent
2020-07-02 00:37:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Wed, 01 Jul 2020 20:03:34 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 11:25:46 -0700 (PDT), RH156RH
Post by RH156RH
Post by Keema's Nan
Water companies in England discharged raw sewage into rivers on more than
200,000 occasions last year, according to data obtained by the Guardian.
<b'rissed>
Post by RH156RH
Anything which either has the nature of a public utility or is of strategic
importance, eg a steel company, should be iin public hands as a matter of
national prudence,. RH
So that it can be privatised by the next government looking to make
some easy money!
The rules governing nationalisation could be amended to say that any moves to
privatise the industries must have a majority of at least 75% of MPs, and
then would only go ahead after a yes vote by at least 75% of the electorate
in a referendum. Any amendments to the rules must also have the 75%
majorities before they could even be considered.
and the next lot would overturn them
Not without a 75% vote in favour, both at Westminster and national referendum
they couldn’t.
Try and keep up.
Try to work out why you are 100% wrong.
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
2020-07-01 20:30:29 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 01 Jul 2020 20:03:34 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 11:25:46 -0700 (PDT), RH156RH
Post by RH156RH
Post by Keema's Nan
Water companies in England discharged raw sewage into rivers on more than
200,000 occasions last year, according to data obtained by the Guardian.
<b'rissed>
Post by RH156RH
Anything which either has the nature of a public utility or is of strategic
importance, eg a steel company, should be iin public hands as a matter of
national prudence,. RH
So that it can be privatised by the next government looking to make
some easy money!
The rules governing nationalisation could be amended to say that any moves to
privatise the industries must have a majority of at least 75% of MPs, and
then would only go ahead after a yes vote by at least 75% of the electorate
in a referendum. Any amendments to the rules must also have the 75%
majorities before they could even be considered.
A simple parliamentary majority should suffice, as for most other
things.
JNugent
2020-07-02 00:37:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 11:25:46 -0700 (PDT), RH156RH
Post by RH156RH
Post by Keema's Nan
Water companies in England discharged raw sewage into rivers on more than
200,000 occasions last year, according to data obtained by the Guardian.
<b'rissed>
Post by RH156RH
Anything which either has the nature of a public utility or is of strategic
importance, eg a steel company, should be iin public hands as a matter of
national prudence,. RH
So that it can be privatised by the next government looking to make
some easy money!
The rules governing nationalisation could be amended to say that any moves to
privatise the industries must have a majority of at least 75% of MPs, and
then would only go ahead after a yes vote by at least 75% of the electorate
in a referendum. Any amendments to the rules must also have the 75%
majorities before they could even be considered.
Such an Act would be easily repealed by a simple majority in the HoC.
Col
2020-07-02 05:57:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 11:25:46 -0700 (PDT), RH156RH
Post by RH156RH
Post by Keema's Nan
Water companies in England discharged raw sewage into rivers on more than
200,000 occasions last year, according to data obtained by the Guardian.
<b'rissed>
Post by RH156RH
Anything which either has the nature of a public utility or is of strategic
importance, eg a steel company, should be iin public hands as a matter of
national prudence,. RH
So that it can be privatised by the next government looking to make
some easy money!
The rules governing nationalisation could be amended to say that any moves to
privatise the industries must have a majority of at least 75% of MPs, and
then would only go ahead after a yes vote by at least 75% of the electorate
in a referendum. Any amendments to the rules must also have the 75%
majorities before they could even be considered.
But would acting on the referendum result to mandatory or only advisory?
75% is setting the bar very high anyway.
--
Col
Keema's Nan
2020-07-02 07:39:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Col
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 11:25:46 -0700 (PDT), RH156RH
Post by RH156RH
Post by Keema's Nan
Water companies in England discharged raw sewage into rivers on more than
200,000 occasions last year, according to data obtained by the Guardian.
<b'rissed>
Post by RH156RH
Anything which either has the nature of a public utility or is of strategic
importance, eg a steel company, should be iin public hands as a matter of
national prudence,. RH
So that it can be privatised by the next government looking to make
some easy money!
The rules governing nationalisation could be amended to say that any moves to
privatise the industries must have a majority of at least 75% of MPs, and
then would only go ahead after a yes vote by at least 75% of the electorate
in a referendum. Any amendments to the rules must also have the 75%
majorities before they could even be considered.
But would acting on the referendum result to mandatory or only advisory?
75% is setting the bar very high anyway.
That would depend on the wording of the Act which enshrined the proposal into
law. 75% is set deliberately high.

There is no point in gradually producing public owned companies such as
water, if a trough-snouting government is going to gain power and transfer
all the hard work to their incompetent private business buddies at knock-down
prices.

As it is, the water companies pay about £1.5bn a year interest on their
accrued debt; and that is at a time of record low interest rates, and high
shareholder dividends.Work that one out, without involving the words
unbridled greed.
abelard
2020-07-02 10:31:42 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 08:39:22 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Col
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 11:25:46 -0700 (PDT), RH156RH
Post by RH156RH
Post by Keema's Nan
Water companies in England discharged raw sewage into rivers on more than
200,000 occasions last year, according to data obtained by the Guardian.
<b'rissed>
Post by RH156RH
Anything which either has the nature of a public utility or is of strategic
importance, eg a steel company, should be iin public hands as a matter of
national prudence,. RH
So that it can be privatised by the next government looking to make
some easy money!
The rules governing nationalisation could be amended to say that any moves to
privatise the industries must have a majority of at least 75% of MPs, and
then would only go ahead after a yes vote by at least 75% of the electorate
in a referendum. Any amendments to the rules must also have the 75%
majorities before they could even be considered.
But would acting on the referendum result to mandatory or only advisory?
75% is setting the bar very high anyway.
That would depend on the wording of the Act which enshrined the proposal into
law. 75% is set deliberately high.
There is no point in gradually producing public owned companies such as
water, if a trough-snouting government is going to gain power and transfer
all the hard work to their incompetent private business buddies at knock-down
prices.
As it is, the water companies pay about £1.5bn a year interest on their
accrued debt; and that is at a time of record low interest rates, and high
shareholder dividends.Work that one out, without involving the words
unbridled greed.
'your' government can 'borrow' 'your' money for nothing...

now you try borrowing a few zlotties...

'government' and you have different privileges and degrees
of power
Keema's Nan
2020-07-02 11:09:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 08:39:22 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Col
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 11:25:46 -0700 (PDT), RH156RH
Post by RH156RH
Post by Keema's Nan
Water companies in England discharged raw sewage into rivers on more
than
200,000 occasions last year, according to data obtained by the
Guardian.
<b'rissed>
Post by RH156RH
Anything which either has the nature of a public utility or is of
strategic
importance, eg a steel company, should be iin public hands as a matter
of
national prudence,. RH
So that it can be privatised by the next government looking to make
some easy money!
The rules governing nationalisation could be amended to say that any moves to
privatise the industries must have a majority of at least 75% of MPs, and
then would only go ahead after a yes vote by at least 75% of the electorate
in a referendum. Any amendments to the rules must also have the 75%
majorities before they could even be considered.
But would acting on the referendum result to mandatory or only advisory?
75% is setting the bar very high anyway.
That would depend on the wording of the Act which enshrined the proposal into
law. 75% is set deliberately high.
There is no point in gradually producing public owned companies such as
water, if a trough-snouting government is going to gain power and transfer
all the hard work to their incompetent private business buddies at knock-down
prices.
As it is, the water companies pay about £1.5bn a year interest on their
accrued debt; and that is at a time of record low interest rates, and high
shareholder dividends.Work that one out, without involving the words
unbridled greed.
'your' government can 'borrow' 'your' money for nothing...
now you try borrowing a few zlotties...
'government' and you have different privileges and degrees
of power
What has that to do with water companies racking up £50bn of corporate debt
in 30 years?

Why should we have to pay more for our water supply just to enable the
companies to pay over generous dividends to shareholders?
abelard
2020-07-02 11:23:33 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 12:09:29 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 08:39:22 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Col
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 11:25:46 -0700 (PDT), RH156RH
Post by RH156RH
Post by Keema's Nan
Water companies in England discharged raw sewage into rivers on more
than
200,000 occasions last year, according to data obtained by the
Guardian.
<b'rissed>
Post by RH156RH
Anything which either has the nature of a public utility or is of
strategic
importance, eg a steel company, should be iin public hands as a matter
of
national prudence,. RH
So that it can be privatised by the next government looking to make
some easy money!
The rules governing nationalisation could be amended to say that any moves to
privatise the industries must have a majority of at least 75% of MPs, and
then would only go ahead after a yes vote by at least 75% of the electorate
in a referendum. Any amendments to the rules must also have the 75%
majorities before they could even be considered.
But would acting on the referendum result to mandatory or only advisory?
75% is setting the bar very high anyway.
That would depend on the wording of the Act which enshrined the proposal into
law. 75% is set deliberately high.
There is no point in gradually producing public owned companies such as
water, if a trough-snouting government is going to gain power and transfer
all the hard work to their incompetent private business buddies at knock-down
prices.
As it is, the water companies pay about £1.5bn a year interest on their
accrued debt; and that is at a time of record low interest rates, and high
shareholder dividends.Work that one out, without involving the words
unbridled greed.
'your' government can 'borrow' 'your' money for nothing...
now you try borrowing a few zlotties...
'government' and you have different privileges and degrees
of power
What has that to do with water companies racking up £50bn of corporate debt
in 30 years?
Why should we have to pay more for our water supply just to enable the
companies to pay over generous dividends to shareholders?
be thankful you have water

how 'generous' is 'over generous'?
Keema's Nan
2020-07-02 11:44:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 12:09:29 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 08:39:22 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Col
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 11:25:46 -0700 (PDT), RH156RH
Post by RH156RH
Post by Keema's Nan
Water companies in England discharged raw sewage into rivers on more
than
200,000 occasions last year, according to data obtained by the
Guardian.
<b'rissed>
Post by RH156RH
Anything which either has the nature of a public utility or is of
strategic
importance, eg a steel company, should be iin public hands as a matter
of
national prudence,. RH
So that it can be privatised by the next government looking to make
some easy money!
The rules governing nationalisation could be amended to say that any
moves
to
privatise the industries must have a majority of at least 75% of MPs,
and
then would only go ahead after a yes vote by at least 75% of the
electorate
in a referendum. Any amendments to the rules must also have the 75%
majorities before they could even be considered.
But would acting on the referendum result to mandatory or only advisory?
75% is setting the bar very high anyway.
That would depend on the wording of the Act which enshrined the proposal into
law. 75% is set deliberately high.
There is no point in gradually producing public owned companies such as
water, if a trough-snouting government is going to gain power and transfer
all the hard work to their incompetent private business buddies at knock-down
prices.
As it is, the water companies pay about £1.5bn a year interest on their
accrued debt; and that is at a time of record low interest rates, and high
shareholder dividends.Work that one out, without involving the words
unbridled greed.
'your' government can 'borrow' 'your' money for nothing...
now you try borrowing a few zlotties...
'government' and you have different privileges and degrees
of power
What has that to do with water companies racking up £50bn of corporate debt
in 30 years?
Why should we have to pay more for our water supply just to enable the
companies to pay over generous dividends to shareholders?
be thankful you have water
how 'generous' is 'over generous'?
There should be no dividends at all if they are £50bn in debt.
Farmer Giles
2020-07-02 12:12:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 12:09:29 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 08:39:22 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Col
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 11:25:46 -0700 (PDT), RH156RH
Post by RH156RH
Post by Keema's Nan
Water companies in England discharged raw sewage into rivers on more than
200,000 occasions last year, according to data obtained by the Guardian.
<b'rissed>
Post by RH156RH
Anything which either has the nature of a public utility or is of strategic
importance, eg a steel company, should be iin public hands as a matter of
national prudence,. RH
So that it can be privatised by the next government looking to make
some easy money!
The rules governing nationalisation could be amended to say that any
moves
to
privatise the industries must have a majority of at least 75% of MPs, and
then would only go ahead after a yes vote by at least 75% of the electorate
in a referendum. Any amendments to the rules must also have the 75%
majorities before they could even be considered.
But would acting on the referendum result to mandatory or only advisory?
75% is setting the bar very high anyway.
That would depend on the wording of the Act which enshrined the proposal into
law. 75% is set deliberately high.
There is no point in gradually producing public owned companies such as
water, if a trough-snouting government is going to gain power and transfer
all the hard work to their incompetent private business buddies at knock-down
prices.
As it is, the water companies pay about £1.5bn a year interest on their
accrued debt; and that is at a time of record low interest rates, and high
shareholder dividends.Work that one out, without involving the words
unbridled greed.
'your' government can 'borrow' 'your' money for nothing...
now you try borrowing a few zlotties...
'government' and you have different privileges and degrees
of power
What has that to do with water companies racking up £50bn of corporate debt
in 30 years?
Why should we have to pay more for our water supply just to enable the
companies to pay over generous dividends to shareholders?
be thankful you have water
how 'generous' is 'over generous'?
There should be no dividends at all if they are £50bn in debt.
Don't confuse the idiot with facts. You know that one of his ' duties'
is to represent the money lenders/creators.

Another way you can tell the treacherous here is the way that will try
to argue that banks don't create our money supply, and create it out of
fresh air - and they will always support more borrowing.
Keema's Nan
2020-07-02 14:19:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 12:09:29 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 08:39:22 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Col
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 11:25:46 -0700 (PDT), RH156RH
Post by RH156RH
Post by Keema's Nan
Water companies in England discharged raw sewage into rivers on
more
than
200,000 occasions last year, according to data obtained by the
Guardian.
<b'rissed>
Post by RH156RH
Anything which either has the nature of a public utility or is of
strategic
importance, eg a steel company, should be iin public hands as a
matter
of
national prudence,. RH
So that it can be privatised by the next government looking to make
some easy money!
The rules governing nationalisation could be amended to say that any
moves
to
privatise the industries must have a majority of at least 75% of MPs,
and
then would only go ahead after a yes vote by at least 75% of the
electorate
in a referendum. Any amendments to the rules must also have the 75%
majorities before they could even be considered.
But would acting on the referendum result to mandatory or only
advisory?
75% is setting the bar very high anyway.
That would depend on the wording of the Act which enshrined the proposal
into
law. 75% is set deliberately high.
There is no point in gradually producing public owned companies such as
water, if a trough-snouting government is going to gain power and
transfer
all the hard work to their incompetent private business buddies at
knock-down
prices.
As it is, the water companies pay about £1.5bn a year interest on their
accrued debt; and that is at a time of record low interest rates, and
high
shareholder dividends.Work that one out, without involving the words
unbridled greed.
'your' government can 'borrow' 'your' money for nothing...
now you try borrowing a few zlotties...
'government' and you have different privileges and degrees
of power
What has that to do with water companies racking up £50bn of corporate debt
in 30 years?
Why should we have to pay more for our water supply just to enable the
companies to pay over generous dividends to shareholders?
be thankful you have water
how 'generous' is 'over generous'?
There should be no dividends at all if they are £50bn in debt.
Don't confuse the idiot with facts. You know that one of his ' duties'
is to represent the money lenders/creators.
Another way you can tell the treacherous here is the way that will try
to argue that banks don't create our money supply, and create it out of
fresh air - and they will always support more borrowing.
It’s the magic money tree, which is used to mock Labour.

However, for the Tories it is not a tree, but a magic money tap, permanently
left fully open - supplies direct from the taxpayer into the pockets of the
rich.
This must never be mentioned, and always denied, in right wing circles.
Joe
2020-07-02 14:34:17 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 15:19:23 +0100
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Another way you can tell the treacherous here is the way that will
try to argue that banks don't create our money supply, and create
it out of fresh air - and they will always support more borrowing.
It’s the magic money tree, which is used to mock Labour.
However, for the Tories it is not a tree, but a magic money tap,
permanently left fully open - supplies direct from the taxpayer into
the pockets of the rich.
This must never be mentioned, and always denied, in right wing
circles.
There are Tories in the USA, EU, and Japan? Who knew?

https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/great-news-from-the-most-prosperous-nation-on-earth/

"What’s truly remarkable, though, is that nearly every country around
the world is following Zimbabwe’s example.

Central banks everywhere, across Asia, Latin America, Europe, and North
America, have conjured trillions upon trillions of currency units out
of thin air since the pandemic started."


"Honestly this pandemic is a politician’s dream come true– they have a
free pass to create limitless quantities of money to pay for whatever
pet project they want.

Universal basic income? Print money. Free healthcare? Print money. New
roads? Print money.

Economists call this “Modern Monetary Theory”, and the idea is that
prosperity is created by printing money, not by hard work and value
creation.

It’s extraordinary that very intelligent people believe in this
nonsense.

But if MMT were true, then Zimbabwe should be the most prosperous
nation on earth."
--
Joe
Farmer Giles
2020-07-02 14:45:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 15:19:23 +0100
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Another way you can tell the treacherous here is the way that will
try to argue that banks don't create our money supply, and create
it out of fresh air - and they will always support more borrowing.
It’s the magic money tree, which is used to mock Labour.
However, for the Tories it is not a tree, but a magic money tap,
permanently left fully open - supplies direct from the taxpayer into
the pockets of the rich.
This must never be mentioned, and always denied, in right wing circles.
There are Tories in the USA, EU, and Japan? Who knew?
https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/great-news-from-the-most-prosperous-nation-on-earth/
"What’s truly remarkable, though, is that nearly every country around
the world is following Zimbabwe’s example.
Central banks everywhere, across Asia, Latin America, Europe, and North
America, have conjured trillions upon trillions of currency units out
of thin air since the pandemic started."
"Honestly this pandemic is a politician’s dream come true– they have a
free pass to create limitless quantities of money to pay for whatever
pet project they want.
Universal basic income? Print money. Free healthcare? Print money. New
roads? Print money.
Economists call this “Modern Monetary Theory”, and the idea is that
prosperity is created by printing money, not by hard work and value
creation.
It’s extraordinary that very intelligent people believe in this
nonsense.
But if MMT were true, then Zimbabwe should be the most prosperous
nation on earth."
You are confusing issues here. You cannot enrich yourself by just
printing money - all money has to be backed by the underlying strength
of a nation's resources.

However, that is a separate issue from the 'fact' that our money supply
is created through bank lending - and banks create money every time they
make a loan. In other words, our money supply - like most other
countries - is created though debt. That is why, despite the ever
increasing ability to produce, debt is increasing - both government and
personal - year by year.

It simply doesn't have to be that way, and only crooks - or fools -
believe that it should.
Joe
2020-07-02 15:34:13 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 15:45:00 +0100
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Joe
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 15:19:23 +0100
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Another way you can tell the treacherous here is the way that will
try to argue that banks don't create our money supply, and create
it out of fresh air - and they will always support more
borrowing.
It’s the magic money tree, which is used to mock Labour.
However, for the Tories it is not a tree, but a magic money tap,
permanently left fully open - supplies direct from the taxpayer
into the pockets of the rich.
This must never be mentioned, and always denied, in right wing circles.
There are Tories in the USA, EU, and Japan? Who knew?
https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/great-news-from-the-most-prosperous-nation-on-earth/
"What’s truly remarkable, though, is that nearly every country
around the world is following Zimbabwe’s example.
Central banks everywhere, across Asia, Latin America, Europe, and
North America, have conjured trillions upon trillions of currency
units out of thin air since the pandemic started."
"Honestly this pandemic is a politician’s dream come true– they
have a free pass to create limitless quantities of money to pay for
whatever pet project they want.
Universal basic income? Print money. Free healthcare? Print money.
New roads? Print money.
Economists call this “Modern Monetary Theory”, and the idea is that
prosperity is created by printing money, not by hard work and value
creation.
It’s extraordinary that very intelligent people believe in this
nonsense.
But if MMT were true, then Zimbabwe should be the most prosperous
nation on earth."
You are confusing issues here. You cannot enrich yourself by just
printing money - all money has to be backed by the underlying
strength of a nation's resources.
But you *can* and *do* enrich the people who are given this
newly-printed money, and they're not the likes of you and me. That's
all that really matters. The central bank itself certainly gets rich by
owning an assortment of bonds, shares, etc. that it bought with
essentially forged money.
Post by Farmer Giles
However, that is a separate issue from the 'fact' that our money
supply is created through bank lending - and banks create money every
time they make a loan. In other words, our money supply - like most
other countries - is created though debt. That is why, despite the
ever increasing ability to produce, debt is increasing - both
government and personal - year by year.
It simply doesn't have to be that way, and only crooks - or fools -
believe that it should.
And it isn't all that way. I, for example, have no debts. The more
reputable among us pay off our debts, when presumably the money created
when we borrowed is then destroyed, and is no longer part of the money
supply.

Government debt is paid off by running a surplus i.e. by the government
taking more in taxes than it spends. It appears that none of the last
few Chancellors quite had the nerve to actually do that, not even
Gordon, hence the everlasting deficit and ever-increasing debt. Just
imagine the level of inflation we must expect before the government
debt can realistically be repaid.

Presumably they think they know how to stop short of hyperinflation,
but that will require a level of discipline entirely foreign to
democratically-elected governments. The road to hyperinflation is paved
with positive feedback and, in recent times, MMT.
--
Joe
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
2020-07-02 16:04:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 15:45:00 +0100
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Joe
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 15:19:23 +0100
Post by Farmer Giles
Another way you can tell the treacherous here is the way that will
try to argue that banks don't create our money supply, and create
it out of fresh air - and they will always support more
borrowing.
It’s the magic money tree, which is used to mock Labour.
However, for the Tories it is not a tree, but a magic money tap,
permanently left fully open - supplies direct from the taxpayer
into the pockets of the rich.
This must never be mentioned, and always denied, in right wing circles.
There are Tories in the USA, EU, and Japan? Who knew?
https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/great-news-from-the-most-prosperous-nation-on-earth/
"What’s truly remarkable, though, is that nearly every country
around the world is following Zimbabwe’s example.
Central banks everywhere, across Asia, Latin America, Europe, and
North America, have conjured trillions upon trillions of currency
units out of thin air since the pandemic started."
"Honestly this pandemic is a politician’s dream come true– they
have a free pass to create limitless quantities of money to pay for
whatever pet project they want.
Universal basic income? Print money. Free healthcare? Print money.
New roads? Print money.
Economists call this “Modern Monetary Theory”, and the idea is that
prosperity is created by printing money, not by hard work and value
creation.
It’s extraordinary that very intelligent people believe in this
nonsense.
But if MMT were true, then Zimbabwe should be the most prosperous
nation on earth."
You are confusing issues here. You cannot enrich yourself by just
printing money - all money has to be backed by the underlying
strength of a nation's resources.
But you *can* and *do* enrich the people who are given this
newly-printed money, and they're not the likes of you and me. That's
all that really matters. The central bank itself certainly gets rich by
owning an assortment of bonds, shares, etc. that it bought with
essentially forged money.
Post by Farmer Giles
However, that is a separate issue from the 'fact' that our money
supply is created through bank lending - and banks create money every
time they make a loan. In other words, our money supply - like most
other countries - is created though debt. That is why, despite the
ever increasing ability to produce, debt is increasing - both
government and personal - year by year.
It simply doesn't have to be that way, and only crooks - or fools -
believe that it should.
And it isn't all that way. I, for example, have no debts. The more
reputable among us pay off our debts, when presumably the money created
when we borrowed is then destroyed, and is no longer part of the money
supply.
Government debt is paid off by running a surplus i.e. by the government
taking more in taxes than it spends. It appears that none of the last
few Chancellors quite had the nerve to actually do that, not even
Gordon, hence the everlasting deficit and ever-increasing debt. Just
imagine the level of inflation we must expect before the government
debt can realistically be repaid.
Presumably they think they know how to stop short of hyperinflation,
but that will require a level of discipline entirely foreign to
democratically-elected governments. The road to hyperinflation is paved
with positive feedback and, in recent times, MMT.
And the answer is...another round of austerity!
Incubus
2020-07-02 16:47:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 15:45:00 +0100
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Joe
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 15:19:23 +0100
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Another way you can tell the treacherous here is the way that will
try to argue that banks don't create our money supply, and create
it out of fresh air - and they will always support more
borrowing.
It’s the magic money tree, which is used to mock Labour.
However, for the Tories it is not a tree, but a magic money tap,
permanently left fully open - supplies direct from the taxpayer
into the pockets of the rich.
This must never be mentioned, and always denied, in right wing circles.
There are Tories in the USA, EU, and Japan? Who knew?
https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/great-news-from-the-most-prosperous-nation-on-earth/
"What’s truly remarkable, though, is that nearly every country
around the world is following Zimbabwe’s example.
Central banks everywhere, across Asia, Latin America, Europe, and
North America, have conjured trillions upon trillions of currency
units out of thin air since the pandemic started."
"Honestly this pandemic is a politician’s dream come true– they
have a free pass to create limitless quantities of money to pay for
whatever pet project they want.
Universal basic income? Print money. Free healthcare? Print money.
New roads? Print money.
Economists call this “Modern Monetary Theory”, and the idea is that
prosperity is created by printing money, not by hard work and value
creation.
It’s extraordinary that very intelligent people believe in this
nonsense.
But if MMT were true, then Zimbabwe should be the most prosperous
nation on earth."
You are confusing issues here. You cannot enrich yourself by just
printing money - all money has to be backed by the underlying
strength of a nation's resources.
But you *can* and *do* enrich the people who are given this
newly-printed money, and they're not the likes of you and me. That's
all that really matters. The central bank itself certainly gets rich by
owning an assortment of bonds, shares, etc. that it bought with
essentially forged money.
Post by Farmer Giles
However, that is a separate issue from the 'fact' that our money
supply is created through bank lending - and banks create money every
time they make a loan. In other words, our money supply - like most
other countries - is created though debt. That is why, despite the
ever increasing ability to produce, debt is increasing - both
government and personal - year by year.
It simply doesn't have to be that way, and only crooks - or fools -
believe that it should.
And it isn't all that way. I, for example, have no debts. The more
reputable among us pay off our debts, when presumably the money created
when we borrowed is then destroyed, and is no longer part of the money
supply.
You paid off your debts with more money created through debt. Any cash you
have in your bank, savings accounts, ISAs etc. has to be repaid by someone.
Post by Joe
Government debt is paid off by running a surplus i.e. by the government
taking more in taxes than it spends.
Ultimately, government debt is paid off by the creation of more money through
debt.

It's a difficult concept to accept because it's an uncomfortable truth.
Farmer Giles
2020-07-02 17:03:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Joe
On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 15:45:00 +0100
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Joe
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 15:19:23 +0100
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Another way you can tell the treacherous here is the way that will
try to argue that banks don't create our money supply, and create
it out of fresh air - and they will always support more
borrowing.
It’s the magic money tree, which is used to mock Labour.
However, for the Tories it is not a tree, but a magic money tap,
permanently left fully open - supplies direct from the taxpayer
into the pockets of the rich.
This must never be mentioned, and always denied, in right wing circles.
There are Tories in the USA, EU, and Japan? Who knew?
https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/great-news-from-the-most-prosperous-nation-on-earth/
"What’s truly remarkable, though, is that nearly every country
around the world is following Zimbabwe’s example.
Central banks everywhere, across Asia, Latin America, Europe, and
North America, have conjured trillions upon trillions of currency
units out of thin air since the pandemic started."
"Honestly this pandemic is a politician’s dream come true– they
have a free pass to create limitless quantities of money to pay for
whatever pet project they want.
Universal basic income? Print money. Free healthcare? Print money.
New roads? Print money.
Economists call this “Modern Monetary Theory”, and the idea is that
prosperity is created by printing money, not by hard work and value
creation.
It’s extraordinary that very intelligent people believe in this
nonsense.
But if MMT were true, then Zimbabwe should be the most prosperous
nation on earth."
You are confusing issues here. You cannot enrich yourself by just
printing money - all money has to be backed by the underlying
strength of a nation's resources.
But you *can* and *do* enrich the people who are given this
newly-printed money, and they're not the likes of you and me. That's
all that really matters. The central bank itself certainly gets rich by
owning an assortment of bonds, shares, etc. that it bought with
essentially forged money.
Post by Farmer Giles
However, that is a separate issue from the 'fact' that our money
supply is created through bank lending - and banks create money every
time they make a loan. In other words, our money supply - like most
other countries - is created though debt. That is why, despite the
ever increasing ability to produce, debt is increasing - both
government and personal - year by year.
It simply doesn't have to be that way, and only crooks - or fools -
believe that it should.
And it isn't all that way. I, for example, have no debts. The more
reputable among us pay off our debts, when presumably the money created
when we borrowed is then destroyed, and is no longer part of the money
supply.
You paid off your debts with more money created through debt. Any cash you
have in your bank, savings accounts, ISAs etc. has to be repaid by someone.
Post by Joe
Government debt is paid off by running a surplus i.e. by the government
taking more in taxes than it spends.
Ultimately, government debt is paid off by the creation of more money through
debt.
It's a difficult concept to accept because it's an uncomfortable truth.
Indeed. The problem that many people who see themselves as intelligent -
and some probably are - just can't grasp it. An individual paying off
his/her debts makes absolutely no difference. You are one of the few who
understand - apart from those who benefit from the scam - that 97% of
the money in circulation is debt money.
Ophelia
2020-07-03 09:11:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 15:45:00 +0100
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Joe
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 15:19:23 +0100
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Another way you can tell the treacherous here is the way that will
try to argue that banks don't create our money supply, and create
it out of fresh air - and they will always support more
borrowing.
It’s the magic money tree, which is used to mock Labour.
However, for the Tories it is not a tree, but a magic money tap,
permanently left fully open - supplies direct from the taxpayer
into the pockets of the rich.
This must never be mentioned, and always denied, in right wing circles.
There are Tories in the USA, EU, and Japan? Who knew?
https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/great-news-from-the-most-prosperous-nation-on-earth/
"What’s truly remarkable, though, is that nearly every country
around the world is following Zimbabwe’s example.
Central banks everywhere, across Asia, Latin America, Europe, and
North America, have conjured trillions upon trillions of currency
units out of thin air since the pandemic started."
"Honestly this pandemic is a politician’s dream come true– they
have a free pass to create limitless quantities of money to pay for
whatever pet project they want.
Universal basic income? Print money. Free healthcare? Print money.
New roads? Print money.
Economists call this “Modern Monetary Theory”, and the idea is that
prosperity is created by printing money, not by hard work and value
creation.
It’s extraordinary that very intelligent people believe in this
nonsense.
But if MMT were true, then Zimbabwe should be the most prosperous
nation on earth."
You are confusing issues here. You cannot enrich yourself by just
printing money - all money has to be backed by the underlying
strength of a nation's resources.
But you *can* and *do* enrich the people who are given this
newly-printed money, and they're not the likes of you and me. That's
all that really matters. The central bank itself certainly gets rich by
owning an assortment of bonds, shares, etc. that it bought with
essentially forged money.
Post by Farmer Giles
However, that is a separate issue from the 'fact' that our money
supply is created through bank lending - and banks create money every
time they make a loan. In other words, our money supply - like most
other countries - is created though debt. That is why, despite the
ever increasing ability to produce, debt is increasing - both
government and personal - year by year.
It simply doesn't have to be that way, and only crooks - or fools -
believe that it should.
And it isn't all that way. I, for example, have no debts. The more
reputable among us pay off our debts, when presumably the money created
when we borrowed is then destroyed, and is no longer part of the money
supply.
You paid off your debts with more money created through debt. Any cash you
have in your bank, savings accounts, ISAs etc. has to be repaid by someone.
Post by Joe
Government debt is paid off by running a surplus i.e. by the government
taking more in taxes than it spends.
Ultimately, government debt is paid off by the creation of more money
through
debt.

It's a difficult concept to accept because it's an uncomfortable truth.

====

But surely debts must be paid by somebody in the end ???

Oh never mind. I guess I simply don't understand how it works!
Incubus
2020-07-03 10:00:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Joe
On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 15:45:00 +0100
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Joe
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 15:19:23 +0100
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Another way you can tell the treacherous here is the way that will
try to argue that banks don't create our money supply, and create
it out of fresh air - and they will always support more
borrowing.
It’s the magic money tree, which is used to mock Labour.
However, for the Tories it is not a tree, but a magic money tap,
permanently left fully open - supplies direct from the taxpayer
into the pockets of the rich.
This must never be mentioned, and always denied, in right wing circles.
There are Tories in the USA, EU, and Japan? Who knew?
https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/great-news-from-the-most-prosperous-nation-on-earth/
"What’s truly remarkable, though, is that nearly every country
around the world is following Zimbabwe’s example.
Central banks everywhere, across Asia, Latin America, Europe, and
North America, have conjured trillions upon trillions of currency
units out of thin air since the pandemic started."
"Honestly this pandemic is a politician’s dream come true– they
have a free pass to create limitless quantities of money to pay for
whatever pet project they want.
Universal basic income? Print money. Free healthcare? Print money.
New roads? Print money.
Economists call this “Modern Monetary Theory”, and the idea is that
prosperity is created by printing money, not by hard work and value
creation.
It’s extraordinary that very intelligent people believe in this
nonsense.
But if MMT were true, then Zimbabwe should be the most prosperous
nation on earth."
You are confusing issues here. You cannot enrich yourself by just
printing money - all money has to be backed by the underlying
strength of a nation's resources.
But you *can* and *do* enrich the people who are given this
newly-printed money, and they're not the likes of you and me. That's
all that really matters. The central bank itself certainly gets rich by
owning an assortment of bonds, shares, etc. that it bought with
essentially forged money.
Post by Farmer Giles
However, that is a separate issue from the 'fact' that our money
supply is created through bank lending - and banks create money every
time they make a loan. In other words, our money supply - like most
other countries - is created though debt. That is why, despite the
ever increasing ability to produce, debt is increasing - both
government and personal - year by year.
It simply doesn't have to be that way, and only crooks - or fools -
believe that it should.
And it isn't all that way. I, for example, have no debts. The more
reputable among us pay off our debts, when presumably the money created
when we borrowed is then destroyed, and is no longer part of the money
supply.
You paid off your debts with more money created through debt. Any cash you
have in your bank, savings accounts, ISAs etc. has to be repaid by someone.
Post by Joe
Government debt is paid off by running a surplus i.e. by the government
taking more in taxes than it spends.
Ultimately, government debt is paid off by the creation of more money through
debt.
It's a difficult concept to accept because it's an uncomfortable truth.
====
But surely debts must be paid by somebody in the end ???
Oh never mind. I guess I simply don't understand how it works!
It is effectively a pyramid scheme. The total debt keeps increasing
indefinitely.
Ophelia
2020-07-03 14:37:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Joe
On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 15:45:00 +0100
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Joe
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 15:19:23 +0100
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Another way you can tell the treacherous here is the way that will
try to argue that banks don't create our money supply, and create
it out of fresh air - and they will always support more
borrowing.
It’s the magic money tree, which is used to mock Labour.
However, for the Tories it is not a tree, but a magic money tap,
permanently left fully open - supplies direct from the taxpayer
into the pockets of the rich.
This must never be mentioned, and always denied, in right wing circles.
There are Tories in the USA, EU, and Japan? Who knew?
https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/great-news-from-the-most-prosperous-nation-on-earth/
"What’s truly remarkable, though, is that nearly every country
around the world is following Zimbabwe’s example.
Central banks everywhere, across Asia, Latin America, Europe, and
North America, have conjured trillions upon trillions of currency
units out of thin air since the pandemic started."
"Honestly this pandemic is a politician’s dream come true– they
have a free pass to create limitless quantities of money to pay for
whatever pet project they want.
Universal basic income? Print money. Free healthcare? Print money.
New roads? Print money.
Economists call this “Modern Monetary Theory”, and the idea is that
prosperity is created by printing money, not by hard work and value
creation.
It’s extraordinary that very intelligent people believe in this
nonsense.
But if MMT were true, then Zimbabwe should be the most prosperous
nation on earth."
You are confusing issues here. You cannot enrich yourself by just
printing money - all money has to be backed by the underlying
strength of a nation's resources.
But you *can* and *do* enrich the people who are given this
newly-printed money, and they're not the likes of you and me. That's
all that really matters. The central bank itself certainly gets rich by
owning an assortment of bonds, shares, etc. that it bought with
essentially forged money.
Post by Farmer Giles
However, that is a separate issue from the 'fact' that our money
supply is created through bank lending - and banks create money every
time they make a loan. In other words, our money supply - like most
other countries - is created though debt. That is why, despite the
ever increasing ability to produce, debt is increasing - both
government and personal - year by year.
It simply doesn't have to be that way, and only crooks - or fools -
believe that it should.
And it isn't all that way. I, for example, have no debts. The more
reputable among us pay off our debts, when presumably the money created
when we borrowed is then destroyed, and is no longer part of the money
supply.
You paid off your debts with more money created through debt. Any cash you
have in your bank, savings accounts, ISAs etc. has to be repaid by someone.
Post by Joe
Government debt is paid off by running a surplus i.e. by the government
taking more in taxes than it spends.
Ultimately, government debt is paid off by the creation of more money through
debt.
It's a difficult concept to accept because it's an uncomfortable truth.
====
But surely debts must be paid by somebody in the end ???
Oh never mind. I guess I simply don't understand how it works!
It is effectively a pyramid scheme. The total debt keeps increasing
indefinitely.

=====

But surely, at some point, those are are owed the money will want to be
paid back??
Incubus
2020-07-03 15:31:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Incubus
Post by Joe
On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 15:45:00 +0100
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Joe
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 15:19:23 +0100
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Another way you can tell the treacherous here is the way that will
try to argue that banks don't create our money supply, and create
it out of fresh air - and they will always support more
borrowing.
It’s the magic money tree, which is used to mock Labour.
However, for the Tories it is not a tree, but a magic money tap,
permanently left fully open - supplies direct from the taxpayer
into the pockets of the rich.
This must never be mentioned, and always denied, in right wing circles.
There are Tories in the USA, EU, and Japan? Who knew?
https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/great-news-from-the-most-prosperous-nation-on-earth/
"What’s truly remarkable, though, is that nearly every country
around the world is following Zimbabwe’s example.
Central banks everywhere, across Asia, Latin America, Europe, and
North America, have conjured trillions upon trillions of currency
units out of thin air since the pandemic started."
"Honestly this pandemic is a politician’s dream come true– they
have a free pass to create limitless quantities of money to pay for
whatever pet project they want.
Universal basic income? Print money. Free healthcare? Print money.
New roads? Print money.
Economists call this “Modern Monetary Theory”, and the idea is that
prosperity is created by printing money, not by hard work and value
creation.
It’s extraordinary that very intelligent people believe in this
nonsense.
But if MMT were true, then Zimbabwe should be the most prosperous
nation on earth."
You are confusing issues here. You cannot enrich yourself by just
printing money - all money has to be backed by the underlying
strength of a nation's resources.
But you *can* and *do* enrich the people who are given this
newly-printed money, and they're not the likes of you and me. That's
all that really matters. The central bank itself certainly gets rich by
owning an assortment of bonds, shares, etc. that it bought with
essentially forged money.
Post by Farmer Giles
However, that is a separate issue from the 'fact' that our money
supply is created through bank lending - and banks create money every
time they make a loan. In other words, our money supply - like most
other countries - is created though debt. That is why, despite the
ever increasing ability to produce, debt is increasing - both
government and personal - year by year.
It simply doesn't have to be that way, and only crooks - or fools -
believe that it should.
And it isn't all that way. I, for example, have no debts. The more
reputable among us pay off our debts, when presumably the money created
when we borrowed is then destroyed, and is no longer part of the money
supply.
You paid off your debts with more money created through debt. Any cash you
have in your bank, savings accounts, ISAs etc. has to be repaid by someone.
Post by Joe
Government debt is paid off by running a surplus i.e. by the government
taking more in taxes than it spends.
Ultimately, government debt is paid off by the creation of more money through
debt.
It's a difficult concept to accept because it's an uncomfortable truth.
====
But surely debts must be paid by somebody in the end ???
Oh never mind. I guess I simply don't understand how it works!
It is effectively a pyramid scheme. The total debt keeps increasing
indefinitely.
=====
But surely, at some point, those are are owed the money will want to be
paid back??
Just create more money out of thin air.
Farmer Giles
2020-07-02 20:05:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 15:45:00 +0100
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Joe
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 15:19:23 +0100
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Another way you can tell the treacherous here is the way that will
try to argue that banks don't create our money supply, and create
it out of fresh air - and they will always support more
borrowing.
It’s the magic money tree, which is used to mock Labour.
However, for the Tories it is not a tree, but a magic money tap,
permanently left fully open - supplies direct from the taxpayer
into the pockets of the rich.
This must never be mentioned, and always denied, in right wing circles.
There are Tories in the USA, EU, and Japan? Who knew?
https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/great-news-from-the-most-prosperous-nation-on-earth/
"What’s truly remarkable, though, is that nearly every country
around the world is following Zimbabwe’s example.
Central banks everywhere, across Asia, Latin America, Europe, and
North America, have conjured trillions upon trillions of currency
units out of thin air since the pandemic started."
"Honestly this pandemic is a politician’s dream come true– they
have a free pass to create limitless quantities of money to pay for
whatever pet project they want.
Universal basic income? Print money. Free healthcare? Print money.
New roads? Print money.
Economists call this “Modern Monetary Theory”, and the idea is that
prosperity is created by printing money, not by hard work and value
creation.
It’s extraordinary that very intelligent people believe in this
nonsense.
But if MMT were true, then Zimbabwe should be the most prosperous
nation on earth."
You are confusing issues here. You cannot enrich yourself by just
printing money - all money has to be backed by the underlying
strength of a nation's resources.
But you *can* and *do* enrich the people who are given this
newly-printed money, and they're not the likes of you and me. That's
all that really matters. The central bank itself certainly gets rich by
owning an assortment of bonds, shares, etc. that it bought with
essentially forged money.
Again you're missing the point. No-one with any sense believes that
creating more money than can be sustained by a nation's resources can in
any way create extra wealth. Of course certain individuals can be
enriched by such a process - and none so much as those who control the
racket - but that doesn't enrich society as a whole, quite the reverse.

Furthermore, apart from such fairly recent innovations as so-called
quantitive easing - most of this extra money that is being put into
circulation by the Government comes from borrowing, borrowing at
interest. That is the real problem, but it is absolutely not necessary.

Governments could, and should, produce the money supply of the nation -
and not depend on the fraudulent process of allowing banks to do it. Of
course this would have to be carefully controlled - and certainly not by
politicians, otherwise you would end up in a Zimbabwe situation.
Post by Joe
Post by Farmer Giles
However, that is a separate issue from the 'fact' that our money
supply is created through bank lending - and banks create money every
time they make a loan. In other words, our money supply - like most
other countries - is created though debt. That is why, despite the
ever increasing ability to produce, debt is increasing - both
government and personal - year by year.
It simply doesn't have to be that way, and only crooks - or fools -
believe that it should.
And it isn't all that way. I, for example, have no debts. The more
reputable among us pay off our debts, when presumably the money created
when we borrowed is then destroyed, and is no longer part of the money
supply.
That is irrelevant. As someone else has already said, you may have no
debts but someone else has on your behalf. The money you paid your debts
off with, and all the money you have, has been borrowed by someone.
Virtually all the money in circulation has been borrowed into existence.
Not only that, it must be repaid plus interest - and in order to do that
even more money must be borrowed. This is why debt increases year by
year - it is simply built into the system. If no-one borrowed everything
would simply grind to a halt.
Post by Joe
Government debt is paid off by running a surplus i.e. by the government
taking more in taxes than it spends. It appears that none of the last
few Chancellors quite had the nerve to actually do that, not even
Gordon, hence the everlasting deficit and ever-increasing debt. Just
imagine the level of inflation we must expect before the government
debt can realistically be repaid.
Presumably they think they know how to stop short of hyperinflation,
but that will require a level of discipline entirely foreign to
democratically-elected governments. The road to hyperinflation is paved
with positive feedback and, in recent times, MMT.
In the present circumstances government debt cannot be repaid - or even
reduced. They even borrow the money to pay the interest on last year's
borrowing. When they talk of reducing the deficit, they simply mean
reducing the amount they borrow, not reducing the amount of debt. Before
the present shenanigans the Government was borrowing over £5000 every
SECOND, God knows what it is now.
Keema's Nan
2020-07-02 20:54:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Joe
On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 15:45:00 +0100
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Joe
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 15:19:23 +0100
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Another way you can tell the treacherous here is the way that will
try to argue that banks don't create our money supply, and create
it out of fresh air - and they will always support more borrowing.
It’s the magic money tree, which is used to mock Labour.
However, for the Tories it is not a tree, but a magic money tap,
permanently left fully open - supplies direct from the taxpayer
into the pockets of the rich.
This must never be mentioned, and always denied, in right wing circles.
There are Tories in the USA, EU, and Japan? Who knew?
https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/great-news-from-th
e-most-prosperous-nation-on-earth/
"What’s truly remarkable, though, is that nearly every country
around the world is following Zimbabwe’s example.
Central banks everywhere, across Asia, Latin America, Europe, and
North America, have conjured trillions upon trillions of currency
units out of thin air since the pandemic started."
"Honestly this pandemic is a politician’s dream come true– they
have a free pass to create limitless quantities of money to pay for
whatever pet project they want.
Universal basic income? Print money. Free healthcare? Print money.
New roads? Print money.
Economists call this “Modern Monetary Theory”, and the idea is that
prosperity is created by printing money, not by hard work and value
creation.
It’s extraordinary that very intelligent people believe in this
nonsense.
But if MMT were true, then Zimbabwe should be the most prosperous
nation on earth."
You are confusing issues here. You cannot enrich yourself by just
printing money - all money has to be backed by the underlying
strength of a nation's resources.
But you *can* and *do* enrich the people who are given this
newly-printed money, and they're not the likes of you and me. That's
all that really matters. The central bank itself certainly gets rich by
owning an assortment of bonds, shares, etc. that it bought with
essentially forged money.
Again you're missing the point.
Missing the point... the only way right wingers can have a discussion about
anything.

They sense they are completely wrong, but missing the point is the easy way
they can avoid having to admit it.
Post by Farmer Giles
No-one with any sense believes that
creating more money than can be sustained by a nation's resources can in
any way create extra wealth. Of course certain individuals can be
enriched by such a process - and none so much as those who control the
racket - but that doesn't enrich society as a whole, quite the reverse.
Furthermore, apart from such fairly recent innovations as so-called
quantitive easing - most of this extra money that is being put into
circulation by the Government comes from borrowing, borrowing at
interest. That is the real problem, but it is absolutely not necessary.
Governments could, and should, produce the money supply of the nation -
and not depend on the fraudulent process of allowing banks to do it. Of
course this would have to be carefully controlled - and certainly not by
politicians, otherwise you would end up in a Zimbabwe situation.
Post by Joe
Post by Farmer Giles
However, that is a separate issue from the 'fact' that our money
supply is created through bank lending - and banks create money every
time they make a loan. In other words, our money supply - like most
other countries - is created though debt. That is why, despite the
ever increasing ability to produce, debt is increasing - both
government and personal - year by year.
It simply doesn't have to be that way, and only crooks - or fools -
believe that it should.
And it isn't all that way. I, for example, have no debts. The more
reputable among us pay off our debts, when presumably the money created
when we borrowed is then destroyed, and is no longer part of the money
supply.
That is irrelevant. As someone else has already said, you may have no
debts but someone else has on your behalf. The money you paid your debts
off with, and all the money you have, has been borrowed by someone.
Virtually all the money in circulation has been borrowed into existence.
Not only that, it must be repaid plus interest - and in order to do that
even more money must be borrowed. This is why debt increases year by
year - it is simply built into the system. If no-one borrowed everything
would simply grind to a halt.
Post by Joe
Government debt is paid off by running a surplus i.e. by the government
taking more in taxes than it spends. It appears that none of the last
few Chancellors quite had the nerve to actually do that, not even
Gordon, hence the everlasting deficit and ever-increasing debt. Just
imagine the level of inflation we must expect before the government
debt can realistically be repaid.
Presumably they think they know how to stop short of hyperinflation,
but that will require a level of discipline entirely foreign to
democratically-elected governments. The road to hyperinflation is paved
with positive feedback and, in recent times, MMT.
In the present circumstances government debt cannot be repaid - or even
reduced. They even borrow the money to pay the interest on last year's
borrowing. When they talk of reducing the deficit, they simply mean
reducing the amount they borrow, not reducing the amount of debt. Before
the present shenanigans the Government was borrowing over £5000 every
SECOND, God knows what it is now.
Ophelia
2020-07-03 09:09:19 UTC
Permalink
"Joe" wrote in message news:***@jresid.jretrading.com...

On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 15:45:00 +0100
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Joe
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 15:19:23 +0100
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Another way you can tell the treacherous here is the way that will
try to argue that banks don't create our money supply, and create
it out of fresh air - and they will always support more
borrowing.
It’s the magic money tree, which is used to mock Labour.
However, for the Tories it is not a tree, but a magic money tap,
permanently left fully open - supplies direct from the taxpayer
into the pockets of the rich.
This must never be mentioned, and always denied, in right wing circles.
There are Tories in the USA, EU, and Japan? Who knew?
https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/great-news-from-the-most-prosperous-nation-on-earth/
"What’s truly remarkable, though, is that nearly every country
around the world is following Zimbabwe’s example.
Central banks everywhere, across Asia, Latin America, Europe, and
North America, have conjured trillions upon trillions of currency
units out of thin air since the pandemic started."
"Honestly this pandemic is a politician’s dream come true– they
have a free pass to create limitless quantities of money to pay for
whatever pet project they want.
Universal basic income? Print money. Free healthcare? Print money.
New roads? Print money.
Economists call this “Modern Monetary Theory”, and the idea is that
prosperity is created by printing money, not by hard work and value
creation.
It’s extraordinary that very intelligent people believe in this
nonsense.
But if MMT were true, then Zimbabwe should be the most prosperous
nation on earth."
You are confusing issues here. You cannot enrich yourself by just
printing money - all money has to be backed by the underlying
strength of a nation's resources.
But you *can* and *do* enrich the people who are given this
newly-printed money, and they're not the likes of you and me. That's
all that really matters. The central bank itself certainly gets rich by
owning an assortment of bonds, shares, etc. that it bought with
essentially forged money.
Post by Farmer Giles
However, that is a separate issue from the 'fact' that our money
supply is created through bank lending - and banks create money every
time they make a loan. In other words, our money supply - like most
other countries - is created though debt. That is why, despite the
ever increasing ability to produce, debt is increasing - both
government and personal - year by year.
It simply doesn't have to be that way, and only crooks - or fools -
believe that it should.
And it isn't all that way. I, for example, have no debts. The more
reputable among us pay off our debts, when presumably the money created
when we borrowed is then destroyed, and is no longer part of the money
supply.

Government debt is paid off by running a surplus i.e. by the government
taking more in taxes than it spends. It appears that none of the last
few Chancellors quite had the nerve to actually do that, not even
Gordon, hence the everlasting deficit and ever-increasing debt. Just
imagine the level of inflation we must expect before the government
debt can realistically be repaid.

Presumably they think they know how to stop short of hyperinflation,
but that will require a level of discipline entirely foreign to
democratically-elected governments. The road to hyperinflation is paved
with positive feedback and, in recent times, MMT.

Joe

===

We don't have any debt either and I have been stunned by the number of
£billions Sunak is finding to give out!!!

I must admit it has been a worry!
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-07-03 18:20:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
However, that is a separate issue from the 'fact' that our money supply
is created through bank lending - and banks create money every time they
make a loan.
Does that mean that Money is destroyed every time a debt is repaid?

If not why not?
Farmer Giles
2020-07-03 18:54:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Farmer Giles
However, that is a separate issue from the 'fact' that our money supply
is created through bank lending - and banks create money every time they
make a loan.
Does that mean that Money is destroyed every time a debt is repaid?
If not why not?
We will talk about that if you tell me that you now accept that our
money supply is created through bank lending - something which you have
strenuously refused to accept in the past?
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-07-03 21:37:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Farmer Giles
However, that is a separate issue from the 'fact' that our money supply
is created through bank lending - and banks create money every time they
make a loan.
Does that mean that Money is destroyed every time a debt is repaid?
If not why not?
We will talk about that if you tell me that you now accept that our
money supply is created through bank lending - something which you have
strenuously refused to accept in the past?
You mean when you set the definitions of the terms used.

C'mon! We already have a definition of the term:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/moneysupply.asp#:~:text=What%20is%20Money%20Supply%3F,almost%20as%20easily%20as%20cash.

"The money supply is all the currency and other liquid instruments in a country's economy on the date measured. The money supply roughly includes both cash and deposits that can be used almost as easily as cash."
Farmer Giles
2020-07-04 04:28:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Farmer Giles
However, that is a separate issue from the 'fact' that our money supply
is created through bank lending - and banks create money every time they
make a loan.
Does that mean that Money is destroyed every time a debt is repaid?
If not why not?
We will talk about that if you tell me that you now accept that our
money supply is created through bank lending - something which you have
strenuously refused to accept in the past?
You mean when you set the definitions of the terms used.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/moneysupply.asp#:~:text=What%20is%20Money%20Supply%3F,almost%20as%20easily%20as%20cash.
"The money supply is all the currency and other liquid instruments in a country's economy on the date measured. The money supply roughly includes both cash and deposits that can be used almost as easily as cash."
No, read my question. I do not want/need a definition of the term 'money
supply', I want you to concede that it's almost entirely created through
bank lending. Do you?

If you don't, then there is no point going any further.
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-07-04 08:19:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Farmer Giles
However, that is a separate issue from the 'fact' that our money supply
is created through bank lending - and banks create money every time they
make a loan.
Does that mean that Money is destroyed every time a debt is repaid?
If not why not?
We will talk about that if you tell me that you now accept that our
money supply is created through bank lending - something which you have
strenuously refused to accept in the past?
You mean when you set the definitions of the terms used.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/moneysupply.asp#:~:text=What%20is%20Money%20Supply%3F,almost%20as%20easily%20as%20cash.
"The money supply is all the currency and other liquid instruments in a country's economy on the date measured. The money supply roughly includes both cash and deposits that can be used almost as easily as cash."
No, read my question. I do not want/need a definition of the term 'money
supply', I want you to concede that it's almost entirely created through
bank lending. Do you?
No!
Post by Farmer Giles
If you don't, then there is no point going any further.
It seems a rather peculiar twist of logic to say on the one hand that bank lending creates money supply whilst on the other the very opposite process, the repayment of a bank loan does not destroy it.

It's debt that is created by any loan and debt can always be repaid.

You confuse the two.
Farmer Giles
2020-07-04 08:40:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Farmer Giles
However, that is a separate issue from the 'fact' that our money supply
is created through bank lending - and banks create money every time they
make a loan.
Does that mean that Money is destroyed every time a debt is repaid?
If not why not?
We will talk about that if you tell me that you now accept that our
money supply is created through bank lending - something which you have
strenuously refused to accept in the past?
You mean when you set the definitions of the terms used.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/moneysupply.asp#:~:text=What%20is%20Money%20Supply%3F,almost%20as%20easily%20as%20cash.
"The money supply is all the currency and other liquid instruments in a country's economy on the date measured. The money supply roughly includes both cash and deposits that can be used almost as easily as cash."
No, read my question. I do not want/need a definition of the term 'money
supply', I want you to concede that it's almost entirely created through
bank lending. Do you?
No!
Post by Farmer Giles
If you don't, then there is no point going any further.
It seems a rather peculiar twist of logic to say on the one hand that bank lending creates money supply whilst on the other the very opposite process, the repayment of a bank loan does not destroy it.
I have made no comment on that - there is no point until you concede the
very simple fact that our money supply is created through bank lending.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
It's debt that is created by any loan and debt can always be repaid.
You confuse the two.
The only one confused here is you. Not only confused, but clearly unable
to read and understand what is written.

Waffle, evasion and padding-out is all you seem to have to offer.
Joe
2020-07-04 11:08:00 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 4 Jul 2020 09:40:11 +0100
Post by Farmer Giles
I have made no comment on that - there is no point until you concede
the very simple fact that our money supply is created through bank
lending.
So these tens/hundreds of billions of currency units of 'quantitative
easing' issued by central banks around the world: where do they end up
if not in the money supply?

The central banks are not lending the money to anyone, they are buying
bonds and shares, both of which are assets and not debts. Presumably
the people and organisations selling these assets can then spend the
money they receive in exchange. Is that money not part of the money
supply? Is it owed to anyone?

Bonds and shares are, of course, a form of money that can be created at
will by the issuing organisations, as long as they can find buyers.
Much like central banks and currency, really.
--
Joe
Farmer Giles
2020-07-04 11:41:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Sat, 4 Jul 2020 09:40:11 +0100
Post by Farmer Giles
I have made no comment on that - there is no point until you concede
the very simple fact that our money supply is created through bank
lending.
So these tens/hundreds of billions of currency units of 'quantitative
easing' issued by central banks around the world: where do they end up
if not in the money supply?
The central banks are not lending the money to anyone, they are buying
bonds and shares, both of which are assets and not debts. Presumably
the people and organisations selling these assets can then spend the
money they receive in exchange. Is that money not part of the money
supply? Is it owed to anyone?
Bonds and shares are, of course, a form of money that can be created at
will by the issuing organisations, as long as they can find buyers.
Much like central banks and currency, really.
Bonds are no more that IOUs, and are a government debt.

However, leaving that aside, governments have always created part of the
money supply. Generally that has been in the form of notes and coins -
'Seigniorage'. However, that amount has got smaller and smaller in
recent times as fewer and fewer transactions are carried out in cash.
When I started work in the 1960s most people were paid in cash, now very
few are.

The amount of money created by the Government is relatively small
(around 3%). Quantitive easing has altered that slightly - albeit by a
different mechanism - but, nevertheless, most money in circulation is
created through bank lending - i.e. debt.

This process is at the heart of many of the world's economic problems,
and it simply doesn't have to be that way.
Keema's Nan
2020-07-02 17:38:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 15:19:23 +0100
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Another way you can tell the treacherous here is the way that will
try to argue that banks don't create our money supply, and create
it out of fresh air - and they will always support more borrowing.
It’s the magic money tree, which is used to mock Labour.
However, for the Tories it is not a tree, but a magic money tap,
permanently left fully open - supplies direct from the taxpayer into
the pockets of the rich.
This must never be mentioned, and always denied, in right wing circles.
There are Tories in the USA, EU, and Japan? Who knew?
Do I detect goal post moving?

The usual knee-jerk reaction, when comments get too close to the truth.
Post by Joe
https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/great-news-from-the-mo
st-prosperous-nation-on-earth/
"What’s truly remarkable, though, is that nearly every country around
the world is following Zimbabwe’s example.
Central banks everywhere, across Asia, Latin America, Europe, and North
America, have conjured trillions upon trillions of currency units out
of thin air since the pandemic started."
"Honestly this pandemic is a politician’s dream come true– they have a
free pass to create limitless quantities of money to pay for whatever
pet project they want.
Universal basic income? Print money. Free healthcare? Print money. New
roads? Print money.
Economists call this “Modern Monetary Theory”, and the idea is that
prosperity is created by printing money, not by hard work and value
creation.
It’s extraordinary that very intelligent people believe in this
nonsense.
But if MMT were true, then Zimbabwe should be the most prosperous
nation on earth."
Erect as many strawmen as you like. It doesn’t change the basic principle I
explained above.
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
2020-07-02 17:50:16 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 18:38:15 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Joe
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 15:19:23 +0100
Post by Farmer Giles
Another way you can tell the treacherous here is the way that will
try to argue that banks don't create our money supply, and create
it out of fresh air - and they will always support more borrowing.
It’s the magic money tree, which is used to mock Labour.
However, for the Tories it is not a tree, but a magic money tap,
permanently left fully open - supplies direct from the taxpayer into
the pockets of the rich.
This must never be mentioned, and always denied, in right wing circles.
There are Tories in the USA, EU, and Japan? Who knew?
Do I detect goal post moving?
The usual knee-jerk reaction, when comments get too close to the truth.
No links to your proof, I notice.
Keema's Nan
2020-07-02 18:09:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 18:38:15 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Joe
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 15:19:23 +0100
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Another way you can tell the treacherous here is the way that will
try to argue that banks don't create our money supply, and create
it out of fresh air - and they will always support more borrowing.
It’s the magic money tree, which is used to mock Labour.
However, for the Tories it is not a tree, but a magic money tap,
permanently left fully open - supplies direct from the taxpayer into
the pockets of the rich.
This must never be mentioned, and always denied, in right wing circles.
There are Tories in the USA, EU, and Japan? Who knew?
Do I detect goal post moving?
The usual knee-jerk reaction, when comments get too close to the truth.
No links to your proof, I notice.
Proof of what?
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
2020-07-02 18:44:28 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 19:09:57 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 18:38:15 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Joe
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 15:19:23 +0100
Post by Farmer Giles
Another way you can tell the treacherous here is the way that will
try to argue that banks don't create our money supply, and create
it out of fresh air - and they will always support more borrowing.
It’s the magic money tree, which is used to mock Labour.
However, for the Tories it is not a tree, but a magic money tap,
permanently left fully open - supplies direct from the taxpayer into
the pockets of the rich.
This must never be mentioned, and always denied, in right wing circles.
There are Tories in the USA, EU, and Japan? Who knew?
Do I detect goal post moving?
The usual knee-jerk reaction, when comments get too close to the truth.
No links to your proof, I notice.
Proof of what?
Proof of a knee-jerk reaction. Or of comments getting too close to
the truth.
Joe
2020-07-02 18:18:40 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 18:38:15 +0100
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Joe
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 15:19:23 +0100
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Another way you can tell the treacherous here is the way that
will try to argue that banks don't create our money supply, and
create it out of fresh air - and they will always support more
borrowing.
It’s the magic money tree, which is used to mock Labour.
However, for the Tories it is not a tree, but a magic money tap,
permanently left fully open - supplies direct from the taxpayer
into the pockets of the rich.
This must never be mentioned, and always denied, in right wing circles.
There are Tories in the USA, EU, and Japan? Who knew?
Do I detect goal post moving?
No, you don't. Your moving-goal-post detector is faulty.
Post by Keema's Nan
The usual knee-jerk reaction, when comments get too close to the truth.
The countries I named also have magic money trees/taps for making rich
people richer. From your logic, they are also run by Tories.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Joe
https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/great-news-from-the-mo
st-prosperous-nation-on-earth/
"What’s truly remarkable, though, is that nearly every country
around the world is following Zimbabwe’s example.
Central banks everywhere, across Asia, Latin America, Europe, and
North America, have conjured trillions upon trillions of currency
units out of thin air since the pandemic started."
"Honestly this pandemic is a politician’s dream come true– they
have a free pass to create limitless quantities of money to pay for
whatever pet project they want.
Universal basic income? Print money. Free healthcare? Print money.
New roads? Print money.
Economists call this “Modern Monetary Theory”, and the idea is that
prosperity is created by printing money, not by hard work and value
creation.
It’s extraordinary that very intelligent people believe in this
nonsense.
But if MMT were true, then Zimbabwe should be the most prosperous
nation on earth."
Erect as many strawmen as you like. It doesn’t change the basic
principle I explained above.
I was quoting, and doing so to make the point that the end result of a
magic money tree is pretty well invariably hyperinflation, and that the
UK government is far from alone in heading down that path. Ergo, it is
difficult to blame the course of action on Tories, especially as there
is no conceivable doubt that Corbyn as PM would have headed exactly the
same way, just maybe slightly quicker. A bit difficult to describe him
as a Tory, or Robert Mugabe, either.

Governments have been given the green light to print without limit by
MMT, a monetary 'theory' which effectively says that hyperinflation
isn't so bad really, and is a lot better than living within your means.
Even Keynes didn't go that far.
--
Joe
Keema's Nan
2020-07-02 20:20:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 18:38:15 +0100
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Joe
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 15:19:23 +0100
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Another way you can tell the treacherous here is the way that
will try to argue that banks don't create our money supply, and
create it out of fresh air - and they will always support more
borrowing.
It’s the magic money tree, which is used to mock Labour.
However, for the Tories it is not a tree, but a magic money tap,
permanently left fully open - supplies direct from the taxpayer
into the pockets of the rich.
This must never be mentioned, and always denied, in right wing circles.
There are Tories in the USA, EU, and Japan? Who knew?
Do I detect goal post moving?
No, you don't. Your moving-goal-post detector is faulty.
Post by Keema's Nan
The usual knee-jerk reaction, when comments get too close to the truth.
The countries I named also have magic money trees/taps for making rich
people richer. From your logic, they are also run by Tories.
Yes, and?

Are you going to turn into the stereotype right wing pedant, and argue that
just because they don’t belong to a party called Tory then they are a
completely different political animal?

Pathetic.
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Joe
https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/great-news-from-the
-mo
st-prosperous-nation-on-earth/
"What’s truly remarkable, though, is that nearly every country
around the world is following Zimbabwe’s example.
Central banks everywhere, across Asia, Latin America, Europe, and
North America, have conjured trillions upon trillions of currency
units out of thin air since the pandemic started."
"Honestly this pandemic is a politician’s dream come true– they
have a free pass to create limitless quantities of money to pay for
whatever pet project they want.
Universal basic income? Print money. Free healthcare? Print money.
New roads? Print money.
Economists call this “Modern Monetary Theory”, and the idea is that
prosperity is created by printing money, not by hard work and value
creation.
It’s extraordinary that very intelligent people believe in this
nonsense.
But if MMT were true, then Zimbabwe should be the most prosperous
nation on earth."
Erect as many strawmen as you like. It doesn’t change the basic
principle I explained above.
I was quoting, and doing so to make the point that the end result of a
magic money tree is pretty well invariably hyperinflation, and that the
UK government is far from alone in heading down that path. Ergo, it is
difficult to blame the course of action on Tories, especially as there
is no conceivable doubt that Corbyn as PM would have headed exactly the
same way, just maybe slightly quicker. A bit difficult to describe him
as a Tory, or Robert Mugabe, either.
Governments have been given the green light to print without limit by
MMT, a monetary 'theory' which effectively says that hyperinflation
isn't so bad really, and is a lot better than living within your means.
Even Keynes didn't go that far.
abelard
2020-07-02 20:44:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 18:38:15 +0100
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Joe
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 15:19:23 +0100
Post by Farmer Giles
Another way you can tell the treacherous here is the way that
will try to argue that banks don't create our money supply, and
create it out of fresh air - and they will always support more
borrowing.
It’s the magic money tree, which is used to mock Labour.
However, for the Tories it is not a tree, but a magic money tap,
permanently left fully open - supplies direct from the taxpayer
into the pockets of the rich.
This must never be mentioned, and always denied, in right wing circles.
There are Tories in the USA, EU, and Japan? Who knew?
Do I detect goal post moving?
No, you don't. Your moving-goal-post detector is faulty.
Post by Keema's Nan
The usual knee-jerk reaction, when comments get too close to the truth.
The countries I named also have magic money trees/taps for making rich
people richer. From your logic, they are also run by Tories.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Joe
https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/great-news-from-the-mo
st-prosperous-nation-on-earth/
"What’s truly remarkable, though, is that nearly every country
around the world is following Zimbabwe’s example.
Central banks everywhere, across Asia, Latin America, Europe, and
North America, have conjured trillions upon trillions of currency
units out of thin air since the pandemic started."
"Honestly this pandemic is a politician’s dream come true– they
have a free pass to create limitless quantities of money to pay for
whatever pet project they want.
Universal basic income? Print money. Free healthcare? Print money.
New roads? Print money.
Economists call this “Modern Monetary Theory”, and the idea is that
prosperity is created by printing money, not by hard work and value
creation.
It’s extraordinary that very intelligent people believe in this
nonsense.
But if MMT were true, then Zimbabwe should be the most prosperous
nation on earth."
Erect as many strawmen as you like. It doesn’t change the basic
principle I explained above.
I was quoting, and doing so to make the point that the end result of a
magic money tree is pretty well invariably hyperinflation, and that the
UK government is far from alone in heading down that path. Ergo, it is
difficult to blame the course of action on Tories, especially as there
is no conceivable doubt that Corbyn as PM would have headed exactly the
same way, just maybe slightly quicker. A bit difficult to describe him
as a Tory, or Robert Mugabe, either.
Governments have been given the green light to print without limit by
MMT, a monetary 'theory' which effectively says that hyperinflation
isn't so bad really, and is a lot better than living within your means.
Even Keynes didn't go that far.
there is lot of space between inflation and hyperinflation
Farmer Giles
2020-07-02 21:02:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 18:38:15 +0100
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Joe
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 15:19:23 +0100
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Another way you can tell the treacherous here is the way that
will try to argue that banks don't create our money supply, and
create it out of fresh air - and they will always support more
borrowing.
It’s the magic money tree, which is used to mock Labour.
However, for the Tories it is not a tree, but a magic money tap,
permanently left fully open - supplies direct from the taxpayer
into the pockets of the rich.
This must never be mentioned, and always denied, in right wing circles.
There are Tories in the USA, EU, and Japan? Who knew?
Do I detect goal post moving?
No, you don't. Your moving-goal-post detector is faulty.
Post by Keema's Nan
The usual knee-jerk reaction, when comments get too close to the truth.
The countries I named also have magic money trees/taps for making rich
people richer. From your logic, they are also run by Tories.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Joe
https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/great-news-from-the-mo
st-prosperous-nation-on-earth/
"What’s truly remarkable, though, is that nearly every country
around the world is following Zimbabwe’s example.
Central banks everywhere, across Asia, Latin America, Europe, and
North America, have conjured trillions upon trillions of currency
units out of thin air since the pandemic started."
"Honestly this pandemic is a politician’s dream come true– they
have a free pass to create limitless quantities of money to pay for
whatever pet project they want.
Universal basic income? Print money. Free healthcare? Print money.
New roads? Print money.
Economists call this “Modern Monetary Theory”, and the idea is that
prosperity is created by printing money, not by hard work and value
creation.
It’s extraordinary that very intelligent people believe in this
nonsense.
But if MMT were true, then Zimbabwe should be the most prosperous
nation on earth."
Erect as many strawmen as you like. It doesn’t change the basic
principle I explained above.
I was quoting, and doing so to make the point that the end result of a
magic money tree is pretty well invariably hyperinflation, and that the
UK government is far from alone in heading down that path. Ergo, it is
difficult to blame the course of action on Tories, especially as there
is no conceivable doubt that Corbyn as PM would have headed exactly the
same way, just maybe slightly quicker. A bit difficult to describe him
as a Tory, or Robert Mugabe, either.
Governments have been given the green light to print without limit by
MMT, a monetary 'theory' which effectively says that hyperinflation
isn't so bad really, and is a lot better than living within your means.
Even Keynes didn't go that far.
there is lot of space between inflation and hyperinflation
As there is between your ears.
Joe
2020-07-02 21:12:21 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 22:44:03 +0200
Post by abelard
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 18:38:15 +0100
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Joe
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 15:19:23 +0100
Post by Keema's Nan
(in
Post by Farmer Giles
Another way you can tell the treacherous here is the way that
will try to argue that banks don't create our money supply,
and create it out of fresh air - and they will always
support more borrowing.
It’s the magic money tree, which is used to mock Labour.
However, for the Tories it is not a tree, but a magic money
tap, permanently left fully open - supplies direct from the
taxpayer into the pockets of the rich.
This must never be mentioned, and always denied, in right wing circles.
There are Tories in the USA, EU, and Japan? Who knew?
Do I detect goal post moving?
No, you don't. Your moving-goal-post detector is faulty.
Post by Keema's Nan
The usual knee-jerk reaction, when comments get too close to the truth.
The countries I named also have magic money trees/taps for making
rich people richer. From your logic, they are also run by Tories.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Joe
https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/great-news-from-the-mo
st-prosperous-nation-on-earth/
"What’s truly remarkable, though, is that nearly every country
around the world is following Zimbabwe’s example.
Central banks everywhere, across Asia, Latin America, Europe, and
North America, have conjured trillions upon trillions of currency
units out of thin air since the pandemic started."
"Honestly this pandemic is a politician’s dream come true– they
have a free pass to create limitless quantities of money to pay
for whatever pet project they want.
Universal basic income? Print money. Free healthcare? Print
money. New roads? Print money.
Economists call this “Modern Monetary Theory”, and the idea is
that prosperity is created by printing money, not by hard work
and value creation.
It’s extraordinary that very intelligent people believe in this
nonsense.
But if MMT were true, then Zimbabwe should be the most prosperous
nation on earth."
Erect as many strawmen as you like. It doesn’t change the basic
principle I explained above.
I was quoting, and doing so to make the point that the end result of
a magic money tree is pretty well invariably hyperinflation, and
that the UK government is far from alone in heading down that path.
Ergo, it is difficult to blame the course of action on Tories,
especially as there is no conceivable doubt that Corbyn as PM would
have headed exactly the same way, just maybe slightly quicker. A bit
difficult to describe him as a Tory, or Robert Mugabe, either.
Governments have been given the green light to print without limit by
MMT, a monetary 'theory' which effectively says that hyperinflation
isn't so bad really, and is a lot better than living within your
means. Even Keynes didn't go that far.
there is lot of space between inflation and hyperinflation
There is, but once inflation has hit about 100% p/a then there is
generally no way of staying in control. It was quite a fast positive
feedback loop in the days of printing bits of paper, I would have
thought that modern money would make it many orders of magnitude faster.
--
Joe
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-07-04 17:15:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Water companies in England discharged raw sewage into rivers on more than
200,000 occasions last year, according to data obtained by the Guardian.
The analysis reveals untreated human waste was released into streams and
rivers for more than 1.5m hours in 2019.
A nonsensical statistic.

There were only 8760 hours in 2019! so what does it mean? Why can't the author use units of volume that people actually use and understand? He does so because they sound bigger than they actually are and in fact hide the real extent of the problem.

Does anyone know the annual rate of discharge into the sea by the UK river system This map gives some indication:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26175213

It is also calibrated in cubic metres per sec units that we can all understand and not hours of flow which tells us precisely nothing.

If you wish to tot up the totals then feel free.

It would give you some idea of the dilution factor. A hell of a lot of rain falls on the UK in the course of January. Every drop of it has to find its way back to the sea via the river system if its not lost to evaporation. The tiny amount that finds its way back via human kidneys or alimentary canal is insignificant in comparison.

Every sewage works has its design capacity. That is the amount of sewage it can cope with before any overflow has to be run off directly into the river. You could build plant that would cope with 10x, 20x the expected peak demand. At a cost!

As things stand, a sewage works can expect to be overwhelmed once every several years duringperiods of exceptionally heavy precipitation or snow melt. At such times of course, dilution will be even higher.

The good news is that the rivers are getting cleaner:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20151111-how-the-river-thames-was-brought-back-from-the-dead

Perhaps we should look back to the good old pre privatisation days. Mrs Thatcher did not privatise the water industry in order to line the pockets of her mats in the city. She did so because the system was creaking. In urban areas in particular Mr Hitler did his work rendering a generarion homeless by blowing down their house he was blowing up water mains, pumping stations, sewage mains,sewage works and so on. Repairs made at the time were necessarily piecemeal and temporary and after 5 years of that understandably the water/sewage system was in a dreadful state.

Add to that, the system was victorian in structure. Costructed with cast iron pipes often paper thin through corrosion. As much water was being lost as was being delivered.

Add to that in rural areas you often did not have even that. There were no mains My old aunt had a lift pump in the backyard which she shared ith a naeighbour. When we visited her I always used to get thirsty so that I could go outside with a tumbler and have the novelty of drawing myself a glass of really cold water, beautiful. The toilet arrangements at the same aunt's was an earth closet at the bottom of the garden. That was novel too!

Even today, you will find significant numbers of rural houses that depend upon a septic tank or a cesspit. I wonder where the effluent from these goes?

Anyway the trouble with socialists is that they believe that everything they have should come at someone else's expense. They see the rain pouring from the heavens and that stretches the limits of their imaginations. "If They get that watter fer nowt, then why are them capitalists allowed to make money from it!" "T'aint right!"

God does indeed bring us the rain which swells the grain, but, he doesn't collect it, store it, pump it through mains and pipes into our homes. Neither does he collect it after use, clean it and return it to the environment in pretty much the same state of cleanliness as he found it.

Water is used by households sewage is very definitely a product of humans. It's only fair, proper and indeed inevitable that the user pays. That's why we need
private water companies.
Keema's Nan
2020-07-04 18:08:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
Water companies in England discharged raw sewage into rivers on more than
200,000 occasions last year, according to data obtained by the Guardian.
The analysis reveals untreated human waste was released into streams and
rivers for more than 1.5m hours in 2019.
A nonsensical statistic.
Only to a dimwit. But then you have already proved your incapacity for even
the basic understanding of anything beyond 'Janet and John Make A Profit At
The Expense Of The Environment, But Couldn’t Give A Shit’
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
There were only 8760 hours in 2019! so what does it mean?
It means there is more than one sewage treatment plant in the UK working
24/7.

1000 sewage works x 8760hrs = 8,760,000 hours of operation.

There are around 9000 sewage works in the UK = 78,840,000 hours.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Why can't the
author use units of volume that people actually use and understand?
Because he assumed his article would be read by adults.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
He does
so because they sound bigger than they actually are and in fact hide the real
extent of the problem.
What problem is that?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Does anyone know the annual rate of discharge into the sea by the UK river
11 billion litres per day.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26175213
It is also calibrated in cubic metres per sec units that we can all
understand and not hours of flow which tells us precisely nothing.
If you wish to tot up the totals then feel free.
It would give you some idea of the dilution factor. A hell of a lot of rain
falls on the UK in the course of January. Every drop of it has to find its
way back to the sea via the river system if its not lost to evaporation. The
tiny amount that finds its way back via human kidneys or alimentary canal is
insignificant in comparison.
Every sewage works has its design capacity. That is the amount of sewage it
can cope with before any overflow has to be run off directly into the river.
You could build plant that would cope with 10x, 20x the expected peak demand.
At a cost!
And here we have the problem. Environment versus profits, and we know who
will always win in that scenario.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
As things stand, a sewage works can expect to be overwhelmed once every
several years duringperiods of exceptionally heavy precipitation or snow
melt. At such times of course, dilution will be even higher.
Thanks to the Labour government between 1997 and 2010.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20151111-how-the-river-thames-was-brought-bac
k-from-the-dead
Perhaps we should look back to the good old pre privatisation days. Mrs
Thatcher did not privatise the water industry in order to line the pockets of
her mats in the city.
Oh please don’t tell jokes. It’s too early in the evening.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
She did so because the system was creaking. In urban
areas in particular Mr Hitler did his work rendering a generarion homeless by
blowing down their house he was blowing up water mains, pumping stations,
sewage mains,sewage works and so on. Repairs made at the time were
necessarily piecemeal and temporary and after 5 years of that understandably
the water/sewage system was in a dreadful state.
Add to that, the system was victorian in structure.
Don’t you find it abhorrent that the Victorians built things to last well
beyond the time when they would be able to use them?

Remember, you refuse to pay for anything that you might not use.I assume this
includes things you will not use after your death?

Victorians were far far less selfish.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Costructed with cast iron
pipes often paper thin through corrosion. As much water was being lost as was
being delivered.
Add to that in rural areas you often did not have even that. There were no
mains My old aunt had a lift pump in the backyard which she shared ith a
naeighbour. When we visited her I always used to get thirsty so that I could
go outside with a tumbler and have the novelty of drawing myself a glass of
really cold water, beautiful. The toilet arrangements at the same aunt's was
an earth closet at the bottom of the garden. That was novel too!
Even today, you will find significant numbers of rural houses that depend
upon a septic tank or a cesspit. I wonder where the effluent from these goes?
I thought it was pumped into a tanker and taken to the treatment plant.

Unless you are a mean bastard, then your cess pool overflows and pollutes the
garden.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Anyway the trouble with socialists is that they believe that everything they
have should come at someone else's expense. They see the rain pouring from
the heavens and that stretches the limits of their imaginations. "If They get
that watter fer nowt, then why are them capitalists allowed to make money
from it!" "T'aint right!"
God does indeed bring us the rain which swells the grain, but, he doesn't
collect it, store it, pump it through mains and pipes into our homes. Neither
does he collect it after use, clean it and return it to the environment in
pretty much the same state of cleanliness as he found it.
Water is used by households sewage is very definitely a product of humans.
It's only fair, proper and indeed inevitable that the user pays.
Why should the user also pay for excessive dividends and director share
bonuses?

Can you prove God is a fascist obsessed by profiteering?

His son seemed to suggest otherwise, when he was around.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
That's why
we need
private water companies.
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-07-05 08:50:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
Water companies in England discharged raw sewage into rivers on more than
200,000 occasions last year, according to data obtained by the Guardian.
The analysis reveals untreated human waste was released into streams and
rivers for more than 1.5m hours in 2019.
A nonsensical statistic.
Only to a dimwit. But then you have already proved your incapacity for even
the basic understanding of anything beyond 'Janet and John Make A Profit At
The Expense Of The Environment, But Couldn’t Give A Shit’
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
There were only 8760 hours in 2019! so what does it mean?
It means there is more than one sewage treatment plant in the UK working
24/7.
1000 sewage works x 8760hrs = 8,760,000 hours of operation.
There are around 9000 sewage works in the UK = 78,840,000 hours.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Why can't the
author use units of volume that people actually use and understand?
Because he assumed his article would be read by adults.
Well you claim to be a former MoD scientist! So educate me.

How can you calculate the flow rate of a fluid through a pipe without knowledge of its dimensions or the velocity of flowing fluid.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
He does
so because they sound bigger than they actually are and in fact hide the real
extent of the problem.
What problem is that?
The imagined problem that this represents a very huge volume of sewage when in fact, compared to the total flow of water through the river system it is miniscule. In short your correspondent would appear to be not numerate.

FYI 1 cubic metre = 1000L

How long this would take to run through a pipe is incalculable unless we knew the dimensions of the pipe and the pressure gradient across it.

The whole of the above is a nonsense. I think my explanation of his choocice of units is neser the mark.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Does anyone know the annual rate of discharge into the sea by the UK river
11 billion litres per day.
It's a hell of a lot more than that. Get some useful exercise and do the arithmetic.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26175213
It is also calibrated in cubic metres per sec units that we can all
understand and not hours of flow which tells us precisely nothing.
If you wish to tot up the totals then feel free.
It would give you some idea of the dilution factor. A hell of a lot of rain
falls on the UK in the course of January. Every drop of it has to find its
way back to the sea via the river system if its not lost to evaporation. The
tiny amount that finds its way back via human kidneys or alimentary canal is
insignificant in comparison.
Every sewage works has its design capacity. That is the amount of sewage it
can cope with before any overflow has to be run off directly into the river.
You could build plant that would cope with 10x, 20x the expected peak demand.
At a cost!
And here we have the problem. Environment versus profits, and we know who
will always win in that scenario.
Nothing to do with that! Every engineering solution hs design parameters with a generous margin to take into account extraordinary operational circumstances.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
As things stand, a sewage works can expect to be overwhelmed once every
several years during periods of exceptionally heavy precipitation or snow
melt. At such times of course, dilution will be even higher.
Thanks to the Labour government between 1997 and 2010.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20151111-how-the-river-thames-was-brought-bac
k-from-the-dead
Perhaps we should look back to the good old pre privatisation days. Mrs
Thatcher did not privatise the water industry in order to line the pockets of
her mates in the city.
Oh please don’t tell jokes. It’s too early in the evening.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
She did so because the system was creaking. In urban
areas in particular Mr Hitler did his work rendering a generarion homeless by
blowing down their house he was blowing up water mains, pumping stations,
sewage mains,sewage works and so on. Repairs made at the time were
necessarily piecemeal and temporary and after 5 years of that understandably
the water/sewage system was in a dreadful state.
Add to that, the system was victorian in structure.
Don’t you find it abhorrent that the Victorians built things to last well
beyond the time when they would be able to use them?
Remember, you refuse to pay for anything that you might not use.I assume this
includes things you will not use after your death?
I shall not be paying water dues after my death. That is certain. My successors will and that is a fair way of doing things where each generation pays for what it has.
Post by Keema's Nan
Victorians were far far less s elfish.
Yes! indeed, the Victorian period was the pinnacle of private enterprise and entrepreneurship.

The infrastructure they built did last within reason. Of course they had never heard of Herr Hitler. They couldn't possibly imagine the effect of heavy traffic bumping over their underground structure. Despite all these drawbacks their London sewer system did given basic maintenance stand the test of time.

But nothing lasts for ever. The old sewers were built of bricks made of fired clay. the drains too were made of pretty much the same stuff. Fireclay bricks and pipes are susceptible particularly at their joints to erosion in wet conditions. Modern sewers are built from precast concrete. Modern pipes from virtually indestructible plastic.

This is another reason why we need the private company. These structures need replacement from time to time. Companies see these facilities as assets which will earn revenues long into the future. Councils see them as liabilities always in need of constant maintenance and replacement. No resident expects the councils to make money out of them Any cash left over at the end of the financial year has to be squandered.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Costructed with cast iron
pipes often paper thin through corrosion. As much water was being lost as was
being delivered.
Add to that in rural areas you often did not have even that. There were no
mains My old aunt had a lift pump in the backyard which she shared ith a
naeighbour. When we visited her I always used to get thirsty so that I could
go outside with a tumbler and have the novelty of drawing myself a glass of
really cold water, beautiful. The toilet arrangements at the same aunt's was
an earth closet at the bottom of the garden. That was novel too!
Even today, you will find significant numbers of rural houses that depend
upon a septic tank or a cesspit. I wonder where the effluent from these goes?
I thought it was pumped into a tanker and taken to the treatment plant.
Not necessarily. it is often carted into the countryside. to land owened by farmers but approved for the purpose by the DoE It's a 3 way agreement between service provider, landowner and the DoW a discharge licence in required. A long hose is laid out behind taanker tanker and effluent is allowed to drain into the soil of the field. from where it seeps down as far as I presume as far as the water table. The beauty oft sewage is that it contains the seeds (or rather the microbes) of its own destruction. As the effluents seep through the soil bacteria they all contain detroy any sludge in the effluent and release valuable nutrients fom it. Sewage effluent is a good soil conditioner
Post by Keema's Nan
Unless you are a mean bastard, then your cess pool overflows and pollutes the
garden.
All cesspools overflow into a gravel margin soakaway built into them. Whilst there the bacteria get to work breaking it down as alreadt described.

A properly consrtucted cess pool can give service for 100 odour free years without attention. A friend of mine atwhere I used to live had such a installation. He lifted the inspection cover for me once. Sweet as a nut is the best way to describe it. No smell even with the cover off. The pool was built under a patio. Nobody would know it was there. All you could see inside it was black looking water.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Anyway the trouble with socialists is that they believe that everything they
have should come at someone else's expense. They see the rain pouring from
the heavens and that stretches the limits of their imaginations. "If They get
that watter fer nowt, then why are them capitalists allowed to make money
from it!" "T'aint right!"
God does indeed bring us the rain which swells the grain, but, he doesn't
collect it, store it, pump it through mains and pipes into our homes. Neither
does he collect it after use, clean it and return it to the environment in
pretty much the same state of cleanliness as he found it.
Water is used by households sewage is very definitely a product of humans.
It's only fair, proper and indeed inevitable that the user pays.
Why should the user also pay for excessive dividends and director share
bonuses?
Because tee principle users of water and water services are private households. Industrial users are usually charged at a bulk rate. A large infra struture projects can be very expensive to construct and it can be years before they come on stream and earn a penny for their owners. In the meantime construction has to go on. wages and interest has to be paid. The question is whether private consumers would be prepared to pay up front for services that they will *eventually* need? months or even years later? Frankly I doubt it.

So who is going to provide this investment f they don't?

Not far from here there is to be an estate of say around 100 houses to be built. At present the project i in its early stages Not a single house exists on the land. However, work is going on. It's the roads and utility services that are going in. It may be 12 months or more before the first occupants move into those houses. So who is to pay for these services already provided but as yet never used?
Post by Keema's Nan
Can you prove God is a fascist obsessed by profiteering?
There is nothing wrong with profiteering. If one man agrees to lend another the use of his money; money which he could spend or receive a return on elsewhere, then surely he will want a
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-07-05 08:59:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
Water companies in England discharged raw sewage into rivers on more than
200,000 occasions last year, according to data obtained by the Guardian.
The analysis reveals untreated human waste was released into streams and
rivers for more than 1.5m hours in 2019.
A nonsensical statistic.
Only to a dimwit. But then you have already proved your incapacity for even
the basic understanding of anything beyond 'Janet and John Make A Profit At
The Expense Of The Environment, But Couldn’t Give A Shit’
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
There were only 8760 hours in 2019! so what does it mean?
It means there is more than one sewage treatment plant in the UK working
24/7.
1000 sewage works x 8760hrs = 8,760,000 hours of operation.
There are around 9000 sewage works in the UK = 78,840,000 hours.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Why can't the
author use units of volume that people actually use and understand?
Because he assumed his article would be read by adults.
Well you claim to be a former MoD scientist! So educate me.
How can you calculate the flow rate of a fluid through a pipe without knowledge of its dimensions or the velocity of flowing fluid.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
He does
so because they sound bigger than they actually are and in fact hide the real
extent of the problem.
What problem is that?
The imagined problem that this represents a very huge volume of sewage when in fact, compared to the total flow of water through the river system it is miniscule. In short your correspondent would appear to be not numerate.
FYI 1 cubic metre = 1000L
How long this would take to run through a pipe is incalculable unless we knew the dimensions of the pipe and the pressure gradient across it.
The whole of the above is a nonsense. I think my explanation of his choocice of units is neser the mark.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Does anyone know the annual rate of discharge into the sea by the UK river
11 billion litres per day.
It's a hell of a lot more than that. Get some useful exercise and do the arithmetic.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26175213
It is also calibrated in cubic metres per sec units that we can all
understand and not hours of flow which tells us precisely nothing.
If you wish to tot up the totals then feel free.
It would give you some idea of the dilution factor. A hell of a lot of rain
falls on the UK in the course of January. Every drop of it has to find its
way back to the sea via the river system if its not lost to evaporation. The
tiny amount that finds its way back via human kidneys or alimentary canal is
insignificant in comparison.
Every sewage works has its design capacity. That is the amount of sewage it
can cope with before any overflow has to be run off directly into the river.
You could build plant that would cope with 10x, 20x the expected peak demand.
At a cost!
And here we have the problem. Environment versus profits, and we know who
will always win in that scenario.
Nothing to do with that! Every engineering solution hs design parameters with a generous margin to take into account extraordinary operational circumstances.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
As things stand, a sewage works can expect to be overwhelmed once every
several years during periods of exceptionally heavy precipitation or snow
melt. At such times of course, dilution will be even higher.
Thanks to the Labour government between 1997 and 2010.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20151111-how-the-river-thames-was-brought-bac
k-from-the-dead
Perhaps we should look back to the good old pre privatisation days. Mrs
Thatcher did not privatise the water industry in order to line the pockets of
her mates in the city.
Oh please don’t tell jokes. It’s too early in the evening.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
She did so because the system was creaking. In urban
areas in particular Mr Hitler did his work rendering a generarion homeless by
blowing down their house he was blowing up water mains, pumping stations,
sewage mains,sewage works and so on. Repairs made at the time were
necessarily piecemeal and temporary and after 5 years of that understandably
the water/sewage system was in a dreadful state.
Add to that, the system was victorian in structure.
Don’t you find it abhorrent that the Victorians built things to last well
beyond the time when they would be able to use them?
Remember, you refuse to pay for anything that you might not use.I assume this
includes things you will not use after your death?
I shall not be paying water dues after my death. That is certain. My successors will and that is a fair way of doing things where each generation pays for what it has.
Post by Keema's Nan
Victorians were far far less s elfish.
Yes! indeed, the Victorian period was the pinnacle of private enterprise and entrepreneurship.
The infrastructure they built did last within reason. Of course they had never heard of Herr Hitler. They couldn't possibly imagine the effect of heavy traffic bumping over their underground structure. Despite all these drawbacks their London sewer system did given basic maintenance stand the test of time.
But nothing lasts for ever. The old sewers were built of bricks made of fired clay. the drains too were made of pretty much the same stuff. Fireclay bricks and pipes are susceptible particularly at their joints to erosion in wet conditions. Modern sewers are built from precast concrete. Modern pipes from virtually indestructible plastic.
This is another reason why we need the private company. These structures need replacement from time to time. Companies see these facilities as assets which will earn revenues long into the future. Councils see them as liabilities always in need of constant maintenance and replacement. No resident expects the councils to make money out of them Any cash left over at the end of the financial year has to be squandered.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Costructed with cast iron
pipes often paper thin through corrosion. As much water was being lost as was
being delivered.
Add to that in rural areas you often did not have even that. There were no
mains My old aunt had a lift pump in the backyard which she shared ith a
naeighbour. When we visited her I always used to get thirsty so that I could
go outside with a tumbler and have the novelty of drawing myself a glass of
really cold water, beautiful. The toilet arrangements at the same aunt's was
an earth closet at the bottom of the garden. That was novel too!
Even today, you will find significant numbers of rural houses that depend
upon a septic tank or a cesspit. I wonder where the effluent from these goes?
I thought it was pumped into a tanker and taken to the treatment plant.
Not necessarily. it is often carted into the countryside. to land owened by farmers but approved for the purpose by the DoE It's a 3 way agreement between service provider, landowner and the DoW a discharge licence in required. A long hose is laid out behind taanker tanker and effluent is allowed to drain into the soil of the field. from where it seeps down as far as I presume as far as the water table. The beauty oft sewage is that it contains the seeds (or rather the microbes) of its own destruction. As the effluents seep through the soil bacteria they all contain detroy any sludge in the effluent and release valuable nutrients fom it. Sewage effluent is a good soil conditioner
Post by Keema's Nan
Unless you are a mean bastard, then your cess pool overflows and pollutes the
garden.
All cesspools overflow into a gravel margin soakaway built into them. Whilst there the bacteria get to work breaking it down as alreadt described.
A properly consrtucted cess pool can give service for 100 odour free years without attention. A friend of mine atwhere I used to live had such a installation. He lifted the inspection cover for me once. Sweet as a nut is the best way to describe it. No smell even with the cover off. The pool was built under a patio. Nobody would know it was there. All you could see inside it was black looking water.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Anyway the trouble with socialists is that they believe that everything they
have should come at someone else's expense. They see the rain pouring from
the heavens and that stretches the limits of their imaginations. "If They get
that watter fer nowt, then why are them capitalists allowed to make money
from it!" "T'aint right!"
God does indeed bring us the rain which swells the grain, but, he doesn't
collect it, store it, pump it through mains and pipes into our homes. Neither
does he collect it after use, clean it and return it to the environment in
pretty much the same state of cleanliness as he found it.
Water is used by households sewage is very definitely a product of humans.
It's only fair, proper and indeed inevitable that the user pays.
Why should the user also pay for excessive dividends and director share
bonuses?
Because tee principle users of water and water services are private households. Industrial users are usually charged at a bulk rate. A large infra struture projects can be very expensive to construct and it can be years before they come on stream and earn a penny for their owners. In the meantime construction has to go on. wages and interest has to be paid. The question is whether private consumers would be prepared to pay up front for services that they will *eventually* need? months or even years later? Frankly I doubt it.
So who is going to provide this investment f they don't?
Not far from here there is to be an estate of say around 100 houses to be built. At present the project i in its early stages Not a single house exists on the land. However, work is going on. It's the roads and utility services that are going in. It may be 12 months or more before the first occupants move into those houses. So who is to pay for these services already provided but as yet never used?
Post by Keema's Nan
Can you prove God is a fascist obsessed by profiteering?
There is nothing wrong with profiteering. If one man agrees to lend another the use of his money; money which he could spend or receive a return on elsewhere, then surely he will want expect and be entitled to a return on it.
Keema's Nan
2020-07-05 09:46:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
I thought it was pumped into a tanker and taken to the treatment plant.
Not necessarily. it is often carted into the countryside. to land owened by
farmers but approved for the purpose by the DoE It's a 3 way agreement
between service provider, landowner and the DoW a discharge licence in
required. A long hose is laid out behind taanker tanker and effluent is
allowed to drain into the soil of the field. from where it seeps down as
far as I presume as far as the water table. The beauty oft sewage is that
it contains the seeds (or rather the microbes) of its own destruction.
Is that right?

No, not according to recent reports.

"Investigators commissioned by the Environment Agency found sewage waste
destined for English crops contaminated with dangerous “persistent organic
pollutants” like dioxins, fuerans, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons at
“levels that may present a risk to human health”.

They reported evidence that these sludges, which are routinely spread as
fertiliser on hundreds of farms, were widely contaminated with microplastics
that could ultimately leave soil “unsuitable for agriculture”.

They found various cases of sludge treated with lime in an attempt to kill
harmful bugs, but which still tested positive for salmonella or “high
concentrations of e-coli”. These bacteria can cause serious or even fatal
infections.”

https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2020/02/04/sewage-sludge-landspreading-
environment-agency-report/

But who cares about the environment when money is at stake?

<snip the sewage>
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
Can you prove God is a fascist obsessed by profiteering?
There is nothing wrong with profiteering. If one man agrees to lend another
the use of his money; money which he could spend or receive a return on
elsewhere, then surely he will want expect and be entitled to a return on
it.
A paragraph of irrelevant waffle.

But can you prove that God is a fascist obsessed by profiteering?

His son did not seem to portray that line of thinking when he was around.
Keema's Nan
2020-07-05 09:38:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
Water companies in England discharged raw sewage into rivers on more than
200,000 occasions last year, according to data obtained by the Guardian.
The analysis reveals untreated human waste was released into streams and
rivers for more than 1.5m hours in 2019.
A nonsensical statistic.
Only to a dimwit. But then you have already proved your incapacity for even
the basic understanding of anything beyond 'Janet and John Make A Profit At
The Expense Of The Environment, But Couldn’t Give A Shit’
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
There were only 8760 hours in 2019! so what does it mean?
It means there is more than one sewage treatment plant in the UK working
24/7.
1000 sewage works x 8760hrs = 8,760,000 hours of operation.
There are around 9000 sewage works in the UK = 78,840,000 hours.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Why can't the
author use units of volume that people actually use and understand?
Because he assumed his article would be read by adults.
Well you claim to be a former MoD scientist! So educate me.
How can you calculate the flow rate of a fluid through a pipe without
knowledge of its dimensions or the velocity of flowing fluid.
Dear oh dear, it is decades since I did those kinds of calculations for my
degree, and I don’t intend to go back there.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
He does
so because they sound bigger than they actually are and in fact hide the real
extent of the problem.
What problem is that?
The imagined problem that this represents a very huge volume of sewage when
in fact, compared to the total flow of water through the river system it is
miniscule. In short your correspondent would appear to be not numerate.
FYI 1 cubic metre = 1000L
How long this would take to run through a pipe is incalculable unless we knew
the dimensions of the pipe and the pressure gradient across it.
The whole of the above is a nonsense. I think my explanation of his choocice
of units is neser the mark.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Does anyone know the annual rate of discharge into the sea by the UK river
11 billion litres per day.
It's a hell of a lot more than that. Get some useful exercise and do the arithmetic.
I gained my figures from DEFRA. If you wish to dispute the numbers, I suggest
you take it up with them.

"Every day in the UK about 347,000 kilometres of sewers collect over 11
billion litres of waste water. This is treated at about 9,000 sewage
treatment works before the treated effluent is discharged to inland waters,
estuaries and the sea.”

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/att
achment_data/file/69582/pb6655-uk-sewage-treatment-020424.pdf
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26175213
It is also calibrated in cubic metres per sec units that we can all
understand and not hours of flow which tells us precisely nothing.
If you wish to tot up the totals then feel free.
It would give you some idea of the dilution factor. A hell of a lot of rain
falls on the UK in the course of January. Every drop of it has to find its
way back to the sea via the river system if its not lost to evaporation. The
tiny amount that finds its way back via human kidneys or alimentary canal is
insignificant in comparison.
Every sewage works has its design capacity. That is the amount of sewage it
can cope with before any overflow has to be run off directly into the river.
You could build plant that would cope with 10x, 20x the expected peak demand.
At a cost!
And here we have the problem. Environment versus profits, and we know who
will always win in that scenario.
Nothing to do with that!
Everything to do with that I’m afraid.

Building storm drains or overflow tanks in which to store untreated sewage
during heavy rains, is extremely expensive.

So, bugger that, let’s let the crap overflow into rivers. So what, if it
kills hundreds of thousands of fish, and wrecks the fragile river ecology?
Few people will know and in 100 years things will have recovered.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Every engineering solution hs design parameters with
a generous margin to take into account extraordinary operational
circumstances.
Obviously not water engineering solutions or the untreated discharges would
not happen.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
As things stand, a sewage works can expect to be overwhelmed once every
several years during periods of exceptionally heavy precipitation or snow
melt. At such times of course, dilution will be even higher.
Thanks to the Labour government between 1997 and 2010.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20151111-how-the-river-thames-was-brought-
bac
k-from-the-dead
Perhaps we should look back to the good old pre privatisation days. Mrs
Thatcher did not privatise the water industry in order to line the pockets of
her mates in the city.
Oh please don’t tell jokes. It’s too early in the evening.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
She did so because the system was creaking. In urban
areas in particular Mr Hitler did his work rendering a generarion homeless by
blowing down their house he was blowing up water mains, pumping stations,
sewage mains,sewage works and so on. Repairs made at the time were
necessarily piecemeal and temporary and after 5 years of that understandably
the water/sewage system was in a dreadful state.
Add to that, the system was victorian in structure.
Don’t you find it abhorrent that the Victorians built things to last well
beyond the time when they would be able to use them?
Remember, you refuse to pay for anything that you might not use.I assume this
includes things you will not use after your death?
I shall not be paying water dues after my death. That is certain. My
successors will and that is a fair way of doing things where each generation
pays for what it has.
Post by Keema's Nan
Victorians were far far less s elfish.
Yes! indeed, the Victorian period was the pinnacle of private enterprise and
entrepreneurship.
And long term planning. Not short term-ist maximisation of profits, dividends
and the share price.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
The infrastructure they built did last within reason. Of course they had
never heard of Herr Hitler. They couldn't possibly imagine the effect of
heavy traffic bumping over their underground structure. Despite all these
drawbacks their London sewer system did given basic maintenance stand the
test of time.
But nothing lasts for ever. The old sewers were built of bricks made of fired
clay. the drains too were made of pretty much the same stuff. Fireclay bricks
and pipes are susceptible particularly at their joints to erosion in wet
conditions. Modern sewers are built from precast concrete. Modern pipes from
virtually indestructible plastic.
This is another reason why we need the private company. These structures need
replacement from time to time. Companies see these facilities as assets which
will earn revenues long into the future. Councils see them as liabilities
always in need of constant maintenance and replacement. No resident expects
the councils to make money out of them Any cash left over at the end of the
financial year has to be squandered.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Costructed with cast iron
pipes often paper thin through corrosion. As much water was being lost as was
being delivered.
Add to that in rural areas you often did not have even that. There were no
mains My old aunt had a lift pump in the backyard which she shared ith a
naeighbour. When we visited her I always used to get thirsty so that I could
go outside with a tumbler and have the novelty of drawing myself a glass of
really cold water, beautiful. The toilet arrangements at the same aunt's was
an earth closet at the bottom of the garden. That was novel too!
Even today, you will find significant numbers of rural houses that depend
upon a septic tank or a cesspit. I wonder where the effluent from these goes?
I thought it was pumped into a tanker and taken to the treatment plant.
Not necessarily. it is often carted into the countryside. to land owened by
farmers but approved for the purpose by the DoE It's a 3 way agreement
between service provider, landowner and the DoW a discharge licence in
required. A long hose is laid out behind taanker tanker and effluent is
allowed to drain into the soil of the field. from where it seeps down as far
as I presume as far as the water table. The beauty oft sewage is that it
contains the seeds (or rather the microbes) of its own destruction. As the
effluents seep through the soil bacteria they all contain detroy any sludge
in the effluent and release valuable nutrients fom it. Sewage effluent is a
good soil conditioner
Post by Keema's Nan
Unless you are a mean bastard, then your cess pool overflows and pollutes the
garden.
All cesspools overflow into a gravel margin soakaway built into them. Whilst
there the bacteria get to work breaking it down as alreadt described.
A properly consrtucted cess pool can give service for 100 odour free years
without attention. A friend of mine atwhere I used to live had such a
installation. He lifted the inspection cover for me once. Sweet as a nut is
the best way to describe it. No smell even with the cover off. The pool was
built under a patio. Nobody would know it was there. All you could see inside
it was black looking water.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Anyway the trouble with socialists is that they believe that everything they
have should come at someone else's expense. They see the rain pouring from
the heavens and that stretches the limits of their imaginations. "If They get
that watter fer nowt, then why are them capitalists allowed to make money
from it!" "T'aint right!"
God does indeed bring us the rain which swells the grain, but, he doesn't
collect it, store it, pump it through mains and pipes into our homes. Neither
does he collect it after use, clean it and return it to the environment in
pretty much the same state of cleanliness as he found it.
Water is used by households sewage is very definitely a product of humans.
It's only fair, proper and indeed inevitable that the user pays.
Why should the user also pay for excessive dividends and director share
bonuses?
Because tee principle users of water and water services are private
households. Industrial users are usually charged at a bulk rate. A large
infra struture projects can be very expensive to construct and it can be
years before they come on stream and earn a penny for their owners. In the
meantime construction has to go on. wages and interest has to be paid. The
question is whether private consumers would be prepared to pay up front for
services that they will *eventually* need? months or even years later?
Frankly I doubt it.
So who is going to provide this investment f they don't?
Not far from here there is to be an estate of say around 100 houses to be
built. At present the project i in its early stages Not a single house exists
on the land. However, work is going on. It's the roads and utility services
that are going in. It may be 12 months or more before the first occupants
move into those houses. So who is to pay for these services already provided
but as yet never used?
Post by Keema's Nan
Can you prove God is a fascist obsessed by profiteering?
There is nothing wrong with profiteering. If one man agrees to lend another
the use of his money; money which he could spend or receive a return on
elsewhere, then surely he will want a
Keema's Nan
2020-07-05 09:25:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
Water companies in England discharged raw sewage into rivers on more than
200,000 occasions last year, according to data obtained by the Guardian.
The analysis reveals untreated human waste was released into streams and
rivers for more than 1.5m hours in 2019.
A nonsensical statistic.
<snip the rubbish and arrive at more Rowing lies>
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Perhaps we should look back to the good old pre privatisation days. Mrs
Thatcher did not privatise the water industry in order to line the pockets of
her mats in the city.
Oh yes she did. Otherwise, why write off the substantial debt that the public
owned water companies had racked up?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
She did so because the system was creaking.
That matters not. Any government could have allocated funds from the taxpayer
in order to re-new the system.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
In urban
areas in particular Mr Hitler did his work rendering a generarion homeless by
blowing down their house he was blowing up water mains, pumping stations,
sewage mains,sewage works and so on. Repairs made at the time were
necessarily piecemeal and temporary and after 5 years of that understandably
the water/sewage system was in a dreadful state.
Add to that, the system was victorian in structure. Costructed with cast iron
pipes often paper thin through corrosion. As much water was being lost as was
being delivered.
Add to that in rural areas you often did not have even that. There were no
mains My old aunt had a lift pump in the backyard which she shared ith a
naeighbour. When we visited her I always used to get thirsty so that I could
go outside with a tumbler and have the novelty of drawing myself a glass of
really cold water, beautiful. The toilet arrangements at the same aunt's was
an earth closet at the bottom of the garden. That was novel too!
Even today, you will find significant numbers of rural houses that depend
upon a septic tank or a cesspit. I wonder where the effluent from these goes?
Anyway the trouble with socialists is that they believe that everything they
have should come at someone else's expense.
And the trouble with capitalists, is that they are quite happy when raking in
customers’ cash, but as soon as the money starts to run out, they drop
their hot potato and leave the taxpayer to clean up the mess.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
They see the rain pouring from
the heavens and that stretches the limits of their imaginations. "If They get
that watter fer nowt, then why are them capitalists allowed to make money
from it!" "T'aint right!"
God does indeed bring us the rain which swells the grain, but, he doesn't
collect it, store it, pump it through mains and pipes into our homes. Neither
does he collect it after use, clean it and return it to the environment in
pretty much the same state of cleanliness as he found it.
Water is used by households sewage is very definitely a product of humans.
It's only fair, proper and indeed inevitable that the user pays. That's why
we need
private water companies.
Private water companies who have so far racked up £50bn of debt in 30 years.

Is that a enviable business model?

The state could have done just as badly.

If I ignored my family finances and carried on rewarding myself with foreign
holidays, new kitchens and bathrooms on a regular basis, but after 30 years
found myself with debts of £50,000; I don’t think anyone would consider
that I was a responsible person when it came to finances.

Perhaps you could explain why the privatised water companies are so admired
for their similar business acumen?
Loading...