• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Heathrow expansion

Lilbaz said:
I said that at the moment heathrows runways are at max capacity. Means any problems there are massive delays. Which means planes circle till they get a landing spot.
An extra runway will reduce that.

An extra runway will not create demand. The demand is there or it isn't. An extra runway will not mean a family wants to go on an extra holiday each year. Or a businessman wants an extra business trip. Or even that the uk are going to start exporting/importing more goods.
Click to expand...

Why do you think it is being built out of interest?
 
Lilbaz said:
I said that at the moment heathrows runways are at max capacity. Means any problems there are massive delays. Which means planes circle till they get a landing spot.
An extra runway will reduce that.

An extra runway will not create demand. The demand is there or it isn't. An extra runway will not mean a family wants to go on an extra holiday each year. Or a businessman wants an extra business trip. Or even that the uk are going to start exporting/importing more goods.
Click to expand...
But there will be new routes. Flights that used to go via Paris or Frankfurt might go via Heathrow's new runway?
 
scaramanga said:
Labour got in on a policy of not being the Conservative party.

The problem for them is that the public don't want Labour policies. They want Conservative policies run by a competent govt.
Click to expand...
Labour actually just got in by default because tory voters didn't turn up. Labour actually got less votes than under Corbyn. Basically, a lot of people are complete disillusioned with both major parties and British politics in general.
 
Think some people might be misunderstanding my comment about demand.

Let me put it another way. Building more hospitals and employing more doctors and nurses, will not increase the amount of sick people in the country.
 
Lilbaz said:
Think some people might be misunderstanding my comment about demand.

Let me put it another way. Building more hospitals and employing more doctors and nurses, will not increase the amount of sick people in the country.
Click to expand...
Not the greatest analogy to support your point tbh😂
 
scaramanga said:
That's a generous description. Not much of anything happened at any kind of pace before capitalism - certainly not anything near the kind of pace you'd like things to change in order to reduce climate change.


I think you've misunderstood.

You're seeing capitalism through the lens of a/some/all leftist economic and political theories. Capitalism isn't organised around anything, nobody is conducting it. Capitalism is just the default that occurs when one doesn't override it with central control.
Click to expand...
I think it is your view of capitalism that is a little too benign. Capitalism's history is one of violent dispossession across much of the global South. It depended largely on forcibly integrating colonised people into the capitalist labour system, usually causing widespread dislocation. Sure the global north has done incredibly well out of this arrangement, but it wasn't all that pleasant for those doing the work and still isn't. And actually the real accelerant in human 'progress' was fossil fuel. Our entire modern civilisation was built using cheap energy derived from it, and now it is driving us to extinction.

As to your other point. Capitalism is not the default. How could a system hellbent on destroying the thing keeping us alive be a default state? This notion that capitalism is immutable is just a myth we've bought into and most can't see past it now. Capitalism is an artificial construct just like all economic systems, and can be changed if we so choose. Trade has always been here, but we won't unless we decide which products are important to trade and which give no discernable benefit to humanity (bar giving value to shareholders).

Obviously we won't agree on any of this. So change of tack.
How do think climate change will affect you and when would think that might be?
 
Rorschach said:
I think it is your view of capitalism that is a little too benign. Capitalism's history is one of violent dispossession across much of the global South. It depended largely on forcibly integrating colonised people into the capitalist labour system, usually causing widespread dislocation. Sure the global north has done incredibly well out of this arrangement, but it wasn't all that pleasant for those doing the work and still isn't. And actually the real accelerant in human 'progress' was fossil fuel. Our entire modern civilisation was built using cheap energy derived from it, and now it is driving us to extinction.

As to your other point. Capitalism is not the default. How could a system hellbent on destroying the thing keeping us alive be a default state? This notion that capitalism is immutable is just a myth we've bought into and most can't see past it now. Capitalism is an artificial construct just like all economic systems, and can be changed if we so choose. Trade has always been here, but we won't unless we decide which products are important to trade and which give no discernable benefit to humanity (bar giving value to shareholders).

Obviously we won't agree on any of this. So change of tack.
How do think climate change will affect you and when would think that might be?
Click to expand...
Agree to disagree (as usual) on the first part.

I think technology will improve to the point where it's unlikely to affect me.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
But hey .....not including 2008 :)
Click to expand...
That's a perfect example of too much intervention.

Banks should have been allowed to fail, they should have had to make their liquidity ratios public and allow people to choose where to put their money.

Govts propping them up meant that their behaviour hasn't improved and won't because there's no risk.
 
scaramanga said:
That's a perfect example of too much intervention.

Banks should have been allowed to fail, they should have had to make their liquidity ratios public and allow people to choose where to put their money.

Govts propping them up meant that their behaviour hasn't improved and won't because there's no risk.
Click to expand...
It's refreshing you see it like that.

Historically it was a mis-step from the government. It revealed they will always be there, as lender of last resort. Removing the potential losing side of the bet.

They bailed out, lent, QE'd and the same very people lapped that up and sucked that money into their world. The government left now in debt and a puppet to the banks and markets.

COVID didn't help obviously adding to that debt pile BUT 2008 was the start of many of the problems we see now.
 
scaramanga said:
That's a perfect example of too much intervention.

Banks should have been allowed to fail, they should have had to make their liquidity ratios public and allow people to choose where to put their money.

Govts propping them up meant that their behaviour hasn't improved and won't because there's no risk.
Click to expand...
Few things:
1) Knowing banks liquidity position is pretty meaningless unless you know enough to assess the complex risk associated with various classes of asset. Banks didn't have a liquidity problem until they did. The real issue in the financial crisis was that when it turned out that ratings agencies had been giving AAA ratings to assets that were basically worthless there was a crisis of confidence in the capital markets where you did not want to trade bank assets anymore because you did not know which ones were good value and which ones were dog-s***. So banks could not trade their assets for cash and basically ran out of money to meet their liabilities despite having solid liquidity portfolios.
2) Let's think about what happens though if governments don't bail the banks out. So actually they did let some banks fail. Northern Rock failed. Bradford & Bingley failed. But RBS and HBOS probably wouldn't have failed in s true sense. They had assets they could liquify to survive given the failure of their wholesale assets, they would have turned to their retail assets: i.e. loans to businesses and consumers and recalled them, taking ownership of security in company shares and properties where necessary. This had already started to happen with mass HBOS repossessions at the time of the government rescue package was agreed.

The government didn't rescue the strategically important banks to "save the strategically important banks". They rescued them to prevent a mass extinction event in the British economy and society as up to 10% of the nations businesses are liquefied by banks and 10% of home owners are turfed out onto the streets....
 
Kompakted said:
Few things:
1) Knowing banks liquidity position is pretty meaningless unless you know enough to assess the complex risk associated with various classes of asset. Banks didn't have a liquidity problem until they did. The real issue in the financial crisis was that when it turned out that ratings agencies had been giving AAA ratings to assets that were basically worthless there was a crisis of confidence in the capital markets where you did not want to trade bank assets anymore because you did not know which ones were good value and which ones were dog-s***. So banks could not trade their assets for cash and basically ran out of money to meet their liabilities despite having solid liquidity portfolios.
2) Let's think about what happens though if governments don't bail the banks out. So actually they did let some banks fail. Northern Rock failed. Bradford & Bingley failed. But RBS and HBOS probably wouldn't have failed in s true sense. They had assets they could liquify to survive given the failure of their wholesale assets, they would have turned to their retail assets: i.e. loans to businesses and consumers and recalled them, taking ownership of security in company shares and properties where necessary. This had already started to happen with mass HBOS repossessions at the time of the government rescue package was agreed.

The government didn't rescue the strategically important banks to "save the strategically important banks". They rescued them to prevent a mass extinction event in the British economy and society as up to 10% of the nations businesses are liquefied by banks and 10% of home owners are turfed out onto the streets....
Click to expand...

Let them fail then nationalise them for £1.

The problem was they were leveraged to 34 times their assets. They had been inventing money and lending it out.
 
Lilbaz said:
Let them fail then nationalise them for £1.

The problem was they were leveraged to 34 times their assets. They had been inventing money and lending it out.
Click to expand...
I don't think you've understood what I was saying. The government had to take on the assets of the banks that did fail (these are still serviced by the government under the UKAR (UK Asset Recovery) scheme.

RBS and HBOS wouldn't have failed to the point they could have been nationalised for a £1, they'd have liquidified retail assets and destroyed millions of livelihoods and the economy into the bargain. That's not also to say how UK government assets and the £ would have been thrown in the sh** as foreign investors watch the government let everything go to sh** and wipe out value at some of the countries largest institutions....

Plus even if you did nationalise the banks for £1 all you do is now own the shares of a bank that still needs to meet its liabilities and still doesn't have the liquidity to do so (and cannot obtain the liquidity from the wholesale markets which have crashed). I.e. the government still needs to recapitalise them with liquid capital - i.e. bail them out
 
Kompakted said:
I don't think you've understood what I was saying. The government had to take on the assets of the banks that did fail (these are still serviced by the government under the UKAR (UK Asset Recovery) scheme.

RBS and HBOS wouldn't have failed to the point they could have been nationalised for a £1, they'd have liquidified retail assets and destroyed millions of livelihoods and the economy into the bargain. That's not also to say how UK government assets and the £ would have been thrown in the sh** as foreign investors watch the government let everything go to sh** and wipe out value at some of the countries largest institutions....

Plus even if you did nationalise the banks for £1 all you do is now own the shares of a bank that still needs to meet its liabilities and still doesn't have the liquidity to do so (and cannot obtain the liquidity from the wholesale markets which have crashed). I.e. the government still needs to recapitalise them with liquid capital - i.e. bail them out
Click to expand...

You didn't understand what i was saying. They were leveraged to 34 times the amount of their assets. They had loaned out 34 times as much as their whole company was worth. So when people started to default on paying back their loans, even if they sold everything they would be bankrupt.

It wasn't a liquidity problem. Like credit suisse. Where bonds lost their value and they couldn't sell them. It was that they didn't have enough assets to cover the losses. Because they had been greedy.
 
Lilbaz said:
You didn't understand what i was saying. They were leveraged to 34 times the amount of their assets. They had loaned out 34 times as much as their whole company was worth. So when people started to default on paying back their loans, even if they sold everything they would be bankrupt.

It wasn't a liquidity problem. Like credit suisse. Where bonds lost their value and they couldn't sell them. It was that they didn't have enough assets to cover the losses. Because they had been greedy.
Click to expand...
A bank can't loan out more than it is worth because the loans are assets. The more it lends the more it is worth. It was very much a liquidity problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back