When does the "Cost of living crisis end"

[topcat2014]

There will always be inflation. The media created this thing called a cost of living crisis.

Recessions have a technical definition, so therefore a technical end.

What is going to be the trigger for society agreeing the cost of living crisis is over?

Then this can be achieved by increased drilling in the North Sea, fracking in areas like Cheshire and Surrey and removing the energy levy on oil and gas companies. This reduces tax revenues which will need to be found from either increasing taxes elsewhere or cutting welfare spending.

I assume this is mocking satire of Donald Farage's "drill, baby, drill, disco inferno? 😆

@TwelvePiecesOfFlair

this may be helpful

https://ifs.org.uk/articles/10-years-have-we-recovered-financial-crisis

A lot of the impact was masked at the time because of QE & super low interest rates.

Emojis aside if Burnham overturns the Rosebank and Jackdaw is it a bad thing in your view?

So I fully get why people like socialism because it's nicer, fairer and kinder.

The problem is that it doesn't work with human nature.

So let's take an example of Jimmy that gets up early so that on his way to school he can pick 5 apples. Now when he gets to school, Susan and Bob don't have any apples. Surely it would be fairer, kinder and nicer if Jimmy gave an apple each to Susan and Bob. Except Jimmy doesn't want to do this, so the teacher forces him to do so (this isn't nice or kind).
Next day Jimmy only picks three apples (what's the point of picking 5 if 2 get taken away). Susan and Bob still get their apple each.
Next day Jimmy only picks one apple - what's the point of picking 3 if 2 get taken away. Susan and Bob now get no apples and complain Jimmy is not being kind or fair.

Yet rather than confront this basic human psychology, you prefer to see it as some billionaire funded conspiracy to protect their interests.

Is what a bad thing?

Eh? It’s the question in the post

When we ban amazon and Facebook ads for the latest 'heath' pills drinks , bars and powders, or the latest overpriced eco household products.
One click shopping is a pandemic of which even the poorest and most savvy fall for when they are bombarded.

I know who you are

You ain't getting wiggle room with me

5 reasons why going ahead with Rosebank and Jackdaw is bad for the economy - Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment

So you’re a no he shouldn’t then.

Lol at that edit. Ridiculous. I now know you answer like this. What a posting style.

lol, I know who you are

So you're I don't understand science then?

Lol I’m quite sure you don't, tf. And happy to keep it that way. Move on to someone else.

We are currently seeing more and more people relying on benefits in the UK

How many times we are an older & sicker population.

55% of the benefit spend is on pensioners which you seem to want to ignore.

The amount of people contributing is falling with the burden firmly on people who are employed

Again 1 in 5 of us are over 65 & we have more over 60 yr olds than under 15 yr olds.

A lot of the economically inactive are ill & a lot fall into the 50 plus category.

The 2008 crash has been influential and The Tories made it worse by kicking the can down the road, lending rules also loosened and we had a period of low interests rates which led to a huge upturn in borrowing and entitlement

Well todays under 25s weren’t able to take advantage of those low interest rates so who are the entitled? Plenty of people have made a fortune simply because they were on the ladder at the right time.

I assume that this is a failure to understand basic economics that if you increase the supply of something then prices fall. And if you reduce the supply of something then prices rise.

Thanks all for responses - It's definitely given me some other things to look at / learn more about!

Move on to someone else?

You replied to me

Give your head a wobble 😀

Your posting style is familiar, that rage at a question and emojis. Enjoy engaging with others.

Okay, so adopting "when pulled, push", your assumption my post was about economics and your assertion I have no understanding of economics

• The breakeven price for the Jackdaw and Rosebank fields is below the price for oil and gas prevailing today, but higher than many fields around the world (for context, see this analysis ). With oil demand likely to peak and fall over the coming decade as cars and other technologies become powered by electricity, these fields may be rendered uneconomic and left unused soon into their lifetime.
• Evidence is clear that production from Jackdaw and Rosebank would make no significant difference to the UK’s energy security or ability to influence international market prices for oil and gas.
• Instead, by undermining investment in the transition away from fossil fuels, it would leave the UK vulnerable to future potential price shocks. The energy crisis triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine helped to drive inflation and required the Conservative Government to spend more than £58 billion in 2022–23 to protect households and businesses against high prices, which contributed to huge profits for energy companies and foreign gas suppliers.

Can you provide the geological investigation reports on the shale-gas bearing rock deposits that prove both viability and safety?

Then after that, we can discuss the impacts of unleashing further carbon into the atmosphere, while reflecting on the 6 heatwaves of this year, no?

The reason people feel like this is because of fiscal drag. Ordinary workers are being decimated by high taxation which was meant for the very wealthy.

We need to stop overtaxing the productive parts of the economy (workers and businesses) and move towards taxing assets.

@MidnightMeltdown I don’t disagree with you but don’t quite see how it links to my post. There is far too much burden on income tax and businesses but again demographics means it’s unlikely there will be a switch to assets.

More in hope than reality I will attempt to convince you of the flaws in the logic of the LSE article.

So it states that renewable energy such as solar or wind has a near zero operating cost. This is broadly true, the input energy (wind or sun) is free although there are maintenance costs.

The issue however is not the opex, it's the capex and revenue. So let's take the example of a say a 50 MW solar farm. Now it's not sunny 24/7 but for the hypothetical calculation let's say it was.
In which case the solar farm would annually produce 50MW x 8760 hours = 438,000 MWh.
In reality with night time, less sun in winter etc the average UK solar farm has a load factor of 11%, so it would produce 438,000 MWh x 11% = 48,180 MWh.
However the grid infrastructure costs to connect it to the grid are the same if it's producing 100% of the time or 11%. So compared to say a nuclear plant running at a 95% load factor, on a per MWh basis the grid connections costs for a solar farm are over 8 times higher. This cost gets passed on to consumers resulting in higher electricity bills.
But it doesn't stop there. The solar farm produces electricity when it's sunny and not necessarily when there is actual demand for the electricity. Given that when it's sunny in one part of the UK it's usually sunny in other parts as well this means that (when you add in wind and nuclear) there can be more electricity being produced than is needed (UK installed solar capacity 22.3 GW, average summer daytime demand 27 GW).
This results in very low and in some cases negative electricity prices. Which in theory for consumers seems like a great thing, except it isn't. The solar farm in order to pay for its construction (bank lenders) needs a steady income flow. Having days when you literally get nothing for your electricity doesn't help. So the Government provides guaranteed price contracts where if the market price falls to zero. The cost of providing this guarantee, you guessed it, is passed on to consumers electricity bills, making them higher again.

But it gets worse. The Government response to higher electricity bills is the approach of "let's build more renewable energy " except (as explained above) whilst pushing down market prices actually makes electricity bills to customers higher.

And it gets worse again because electricity costs keep going higher, consumers use less electricity. For example despite the increase in EVs, data centres, heat pumps etc the UK is now using less electricity than 10 years ago. The lower demand means that there are more cases of supply exceeding demand meaning more top up payments to the solar and wind companies meaning higher prices to consumers and so on.

Now I fully expect you to dismiss all of this and prefer to see it as some capitalist anti environment conspiracy theory, but I hope that I have demonstrated that I do have some knowledge of both the workings of the energy market and UK Government energy policies.

I’m just saying that you can’t really blame people for being angry about the ballooning welfare bill. Yes, the change it demographics is part of that, but that’s not the full story. For example, it was reported recently that there are more pip claims for 7 year olds than there are 50 year olds. It’s simply unaffordable. People expect the state to pick up the tab for far too much.

And my point is there is nuance & a lot of welfare is going to pensioners & then working people for housing & childcare.

Is it concerning that 70,000 7 yr olds now receive DLA? Yes but it’s still concerning that 67,000 50 yr olds have similar welfare claims.

I think DLA costs 8bn but when the benefits cost is 333bn that’s a very small part of it.

I don’t get any benefits but if my dc became disabled why shouldn’t I claim DLA? I have paid enough tax in my life!

The service economy was mocked many decades ago (can't recall by whom) as an economy whereby we all take in each other's laundry.

You have to understand where economic growth and wealth come from: the primary industries. That is mining, farming, fishing. i.e. taking from what is there on or in the earth, and adding value by manufacturing it into food and goods for people to buy. (You might add wind and solar power as primary industries, but it is debateable).
'Economic growth' without the consumption of physical resources and energy is pie in the sky, smoke and mirrors, just a great big financial bubble waiting to pop.

The only way a supposed service economy would work is if you are just looking at one nation, not the globe, and that nation sells services to other nations to buy the food and physical goods they need in return. A risky proposition that leaves you dependent on other nations for your food and energy.

Nail on the head. We NEED to start making things again, using our natural resources again, etc. The "service economy" is just a house of cards, ready to collapse when the countries who ARE making things and using natural resources decide!