water supply

I took great care in deciding where I would live. Close to, but not too near the A1,M1 & M62. Also near but not too close to 2 cities. I am about 4 miles from the nearest river and 60 miles from the coast. The land round here is flat and according to the guys that use the local airfield, 9 metres above sea level. They are hardly likely to build a reservoir here because they would have to dig an enormous hole. The biggest danger is that the surrounding farmland will be over run with new housing for the people who are unfortunate enough to live less than 2 metres above sea level.

Regarding overpopulation which has been mentioned in previous posts, I will offer the following facts.

(1) In 1950 the UK population was 50.38 million.

(2) 2019 figures show the population at 66.93 million ( and that's just the ones we know about )

(3) We now appear to have overtaken Holland as the most densely populated country in Europe.

(4) Lemmings seem to have a solution for over population.

For the record, it's a myth that lemmings fling themselves off cliffs. That misinformation originates with Disney.

That's hardly any increase at all. Rougly 16 million in 70 years. About half of one per cent a year? That's a dangerously low population growth rate, many economists say. (They must not have to queue in traffic on the way home, somehow.)

Edited By Hopper on 17/06/2019 06:49:54

Edited By Tony Pratt 1 on 17/06/2019 06:51:39

LOL those would be the ones.

Many year's ago when I was on one of my management courses, Economics was on the syllabus and was considered a complete waste of time. There was a saying " If you laid all the Economists in the world end to end, you'd never reach a conclusion". Unfortunately they get taken notice of, and important decisions are made on the basis of the the drivel they come up with.

Unfortunately Algorithms are set to take their place and the world and our lives will be determined by them. This is already happening in the insurance industry, and many others are set to follow.

Algorithms... algorithms... algorithms.....

A dancing craze invented by a former American politician of no great note?

I hate the word, not for itself but for its abusive and worship by journalists and politicians who like to repeat long words 'cos it makes journalists and politicians sound clever.

We're all engineers - we know where technical terms apply or are valuable; we also spot when non-engineers or non-scientists are using as metaphors, fancy words without comprehending them. (Actually a lot of people now do not even really understand quite ordinary words.)

We also know artificial things are made or written by people; 'ooman beings like thee and me.

An algoritms is nothing more than a calculating routine within a computer programme - and yes I do refuse the use the American spelling for the latter. On its own it is useless: just a string of code characters, or in the computer, of 1s and 0s, representing a string of algebra.

The algorithm and its host programme were designed written by people - even if the programme can adapt its own calculations to suit some change. And that programme was designed to perform a set of tasks within a system designed and run by people.

Don't blame the poor little "Algorithm". Blame the people - who include ivory-tower'd economists and insurers with the initiative of a gnu - who designed and operate the system, then the programme!

What we can blame is the "algorithm" being used blindly: "The computer says 'A = F' therefore A must equal F " when in reality A could be anything from B to P. That is the way of the system-using people using the system to avoid responsibility, intelligence and initiative. And such an abrogation does not need a computer programme: the database with its "algorithms" is a just a tool to make life easier for the abrogant.

You have to love statistics. Best stats i can find and guesstimate from give a mid-50's population around 53million a police force of 72,000 and crime figures of 500,000/year. Current population of 66mill, 122,000 police and 5.5million crimes. Interestingly back then one actually saw police out and about. Real crime figures now are likely way higher than 5.5 mill 'cos most people don't bother reporting them - unless it's something important like an insult on facebook. In the 50's car ownership was less than 15% of households but most folk now ate sliced bread. Now 60% households have at least one car.

From this we can assume that 15million people are responsible for 5million crimes from consuming too much bread and having too many cars and 50,000 police can't catch them.

pgk

Nice assumption.

Interesting diversion into Police and crime. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there was a Crown Prosecution Service then. I also think respect was common, and the court system worked in favour of the victim!!

The current Police force are now in a complete 'no win' situation! Complete lack of respect from most of the scum they have to deal with; not much back up from the CPS, and courts which deal out a 'slap on the wrist'! Police involvement is now filmed on phones and put on the internet, so they have to think through any consequencies of their action before they do anything

How can the Police cope with the pressure they are under?

From safety statistics from a number of years ago it was stated that 10% of all road accidents occurred at speeds of More than 70mph. That means that 90% of all accidents occurred at speeds of Less than 70mph. By deduction then, it is safer to drive at speeds of more than 70mph.

Just an attempt at a lighthearted comment, not meant for serious discussion by the pro-safety lobby.

Dave
The Emerald Isle

A bit like a majority of accidents happening within 3 km of your home.

Have you thought about moving ?

OMG, not long ago I found myself defending Accountants, and now it's Economists! What next, Estate Agents?

Sad to see Economists being rubbished on the forum when the two who made the world rich were both British. Adam Smith invented Free Trade and the idea of Growth (which generates wealth), and John Maynard Keynes realised that money borrowed from the future could fix hard problems today. Despite cracks, both ideas have been extremely successful.

Economics is what I'd call a semi-science; although there are underlying rules that can be exploited, irrational human behaviour intrudes - everything between mob panic and financial Unicorns. What happens in the economy is due to a mix of rational and irrational thought. We are all emotional about money.

The economist's job is to discourage financial foolishness by improving decision making. What they do is imperfect and they get it wrong sometimes, or - more likely - unpopular advice is watered down. However, when it comes to the wealth of nations, an economist is a far better bet than man-in-pub. At least economists understand the basics. Financial management based on ignorance, prejudice, misunderstandings, or narrow personal experience is high-risk.

Putting it another way, criticism is cheap and easy. Any fool can do it, and - when irritated - people lash out. But, like any badly made cheap-tat, it's best if the quality of ideas meet minimum standards. Good criticisms come with with a viable alternative . You need to say 'This is what's wrong, here's a sensible alternative.' Then others can test the 'sensible alternative' to confirm it holds water and isn't flawed, or is just empty political vapouring.

I understand the frustration, but replacing economists, or any other kind of specialist, with unqualified blokes who happen to agree with you is a good way of making things worse.

Not everyone agrees with me. The philosopher Thomas Carlyle described economics as a 'Dismal Science' but he was a Scot with stomach ulcers...

Dave

Surely economics is as simple as selling something for more than it costs to make, Apple have taken it to an extreme by selling a £100 phone for a £1000 and we queue up to buy them.

Mike

Re; UK population.

Heard on BBC last week, there are 3,500,000 more people registered to doctors (@£150 each to the doctor ) than the official total population figure.

On the ground floor yes. But it also includes counter-intuitive behaviours like selling products below market rate. For example, a hotel owner still has to heat and staff it when it's only half-full. If he can fill the empty rooms, even at below cost, he might still turn a profit overall. This is one reason the cost of airline and railway tickets vary so much for the same journey at different times. Generalised, economics is about how people agree values and prices, which are not the same thing, depending on prevailing circumstances.

Economics has much to tell Apple about what happens when a rival starts selling good phones for £900 and advertising and customer loyalty fail to keep the brand afloat. Confidence matters.

Although domestic economics are simple enough, business economics are far more complicated. Economics get less obvious as things scale-up. National economics are far from 'simples', not least because of the international complications.

And of course management of the British economy lies behind why Brit's can afford to buy £1000 phones whilst the hard-working poor of Zimbabwe can't.

Dave

Just because it is flat does not mean that a reservoir will not be built, where I live they want to build one, they will dig a hole and build a wall round it that will tower over the surrounding area/villages.

**LINK**

Baldric.

We are a bit close to that one as well, I wonder where they are going to get the water to fill it when they struggle with Farmoor.

Mike

Plenty in Lincolnshire at the moment, at home we had 108mm last week.

Ask the cricketers where the water comes from(World cup cricket at the moment in England and Wales).

Ian S C

SWMBO is an economics graduate, but she still comes home and says she has 'saved' money by buying something in a sale. My argument that we didn't need it and so would have saved far more by not buying it doesn't seem to fit with economic theory.

The final exams for economics students are the only ones in which the questions don't change, but the answers do. Anyone remember monetarism?