Re: Toxic gloom!

On Jan 25, 4:32 pm, Tiny <dhsrcr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 25, 2:59 pm, Alan N Estherby <a...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





Roger Murray wrote:
With this doom and gloom recession we all knew we were in, but only
made official a couple of days ago, not forgetting a gruesome new
phrase now in the vocabulary, i/e “Toxic Dept” which adds further to
the gloom to say the least, as if we are all going to catch some
macabre flesh eating disease by just being near to one.
With the gurus now forecasting that it will take years to recover, it
all adds up to one question of basic interest to all of us who
subscribe to this group. ‘Where does this leave the Waterways?’  I
can’t see much money coming in this direction, which ever way we look
at it for at least two or three years to come, if that!

 I would have thought it now essential to identify the absolute
priorities and put all other expenditures on hold. One key priority
being to just keep the existing system maintained and working with no
frills, and forget about restoring and opening disused canals and
modernisation schemes.  These projects can be put on hold until the
money starts to flow again. I suspect a lot unnecessary expenditure
can be saved by just maintaining the basic navigable system.

Roger.

  Sadly, Roger I suspect you are right, that money for the waterways is
likely to be even less forthcoming than in the recent past.

Isn't it strange though that the waterways system is suffering for the
want of a few million pounds, and yet, at the drop of a hat (or a bank
share price...) the Government can find tens of BILLIONS of pounds to
prop up the banks, either by underwriting the "toxic debts" to which you
refer or by buying up large stakes in the banks themselves, effectively
part-nationalising them.

One of the problems the Government appears to face is how to pump this
additional money flow into the system to stimulate the economy.

Remembering also that many people face losing their jobs in the
deepening depression (note last month's six-figure increase in the
unemployment statistics), it occurs to me - just thinking aloud really -
that perhaps instead of cutting back on things like waterways
maintenance, the Government should instead be promoting and expanding
such public works projects.

They are, after all, something the Government has direct control over,
and by pumping money into public works projects, they could create jobs
for those who have become unemployed and inject some stimulus into the
economy.

Its probably all far too simplistic, and no doubt there are plenty in
this NG who will point out the snags - there must be plenty! - but what
do others think?

Alan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Everything is relative. And relative to keeping voters happy, saving
the Universe and all the rest the banking system is worth billions (of
our money) to the government while the canals currently are not worth
a red cent of investment. If they could reduce their input of dosh to
the cut to zero they would and let others pick up the bills. They
might do it yet!

 Incidentally I note the waterways minister has other more important
hats so don't expect him to waste to much time on us whingers. He has
more important fish to fry.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As I mentioned in another posting, the canal system is important in
view of the water shortage predictions in the future. They provide a
unique system of shifting large volumes of water over large areas,
plus the strategic importance of the reservoirs owned by BW. It was
recently debated that we could be facing acute water shortages in the
future ( even though it seems to never stop raining!) We just don't
have enough reservoirs. The time frame to just build one, from
planning, not in my back yard legal problems, actually building and
completion takes about twenty years, not forgetting the complexity of
the pipework to shift the water. The canal system is vitally important
to any future government as it provides a ready made water supply
network connecting most of the conurbations. This is where the money
will come from! In fact I would predict that the waterways will
ultimately be privatised and sold off to the large water companies
with the proviso that they keep them open for navigation and
recreation purposes. Sorry about that!

Roger.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: DeSalinization? (=Nuclear Power Plants)
    ... Most proposals for desal plants in Southern ... >> water for human consumption. ... > One of the dangers of this federal money for desalination is that the ... Water is controlled by government, ...
    (soc.culture.hawaii)
  • Re: Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable
    ... :> And if that's the 'market setup', why have the government in the ... :If nobody buys much water, then it costs the government very little. ... :there's a proven market. ... "You don't 'discover' a market just by throwing money around." ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: We cant even take care of our own...
    ... everyone had food and water after the ... Inept government, ... begging for money for good causes. ...
    (rec.boats)
  • Re: Women pressured to denounce monks
    ... Why buy the weapons and sell it away. ... give the money directly to the people. ... Besides the government is cheating the people ... physically abused, but that food, water and medication were withheld ...
    (soc.culture.singapore)
  • Re: The Citizens Guide to Money
    ... Government to use on pork-barrel projects? ... the money to become more valuable again - zero sum. ... Inescapable public power over all of Government including money ... democracy, central focus against disintegration, ...
    (sci.econ)
Loading