« Bloody Amazon! | Main | Timmy’s Baaack! »

April 25, 2006

Travelling Timmy

5 am start this morning, travelling back to the UK. Not much time to read blogs or the papers (although have got suitably enraged by reading Richard Layard's "Happiness") so, little here. Regular service will be resumed Friday.

Piecette at the ASI for those desperate for more Timmy.

April 25, 2006 in The Blogger Himself | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Travelling Timmy:

» The Curse Of Worstall from PooterGeek
Tim Worstall is not Charles Clarkes best friend, so it is a chilling reminder of the growing power of the blog that at exactly the same time as the normally relentless ex-pat blogger decides to take a trip to Blighty, the Home Secr... [Read More]

Tracked on Apr 29, 2006 12:40:24 PM


Tim, you've missed moonbat's weekly drivelling. He did however raise and interesting question "why do gas prices follow oil prices?" ... anybody ?

Posted by: johnny bonk | Apr 25, 2006 7:10:48 PM

There was an article about this the other day in a publication I read (not online). It didn't really explain it very well - in the 1950s and 1960s they were relatively close competitors in both electricity generation and heating, but as oil became expensive this faded. Now it's still quite instutionalised - a lot of gas contracts (long-term) are made with reference to the oil price.

This adds some more:

There are a number of historical and technical reasons, not least the fact that oil and gas are often produced from the same reservoir and can substitute for each other across a range of domestic and industrial uses. However, one of the main reasons is that oil has been traded for longer than gas. Indeed, gas was seen as a waste product initially and was simply burnt at the wellhead. When gas was first used as a competing fuel, it was important that it remained competitively priced for those customers switching from oil derivative products. Indexing gas prices to those of oil therefore ensured that gas remained competitive with its substitutes. It also ensured that there was not a distortion in exploration and production activities, whereby investment was diverted to pursuing only oil, but not gas (as happened in the UK in the late 1970s and early 1980s) or vice versa. Nonetheless, the value of gas is only about two thirds of that of oil per unit of energy delivered.

Posted by: Matthew | Apr 25, 2006 7:37:48 PM

This news might not cheer up Richard Layard and his friends:

"THE euro zone is heading for inevitable collapse because it cannot function without full political union, a senior economic adviser to the European Commission has warned. Paul De Grauwe, a leading economist whose work was used to make the case for European monetary union in the 1990s, says the signs point to a slow death for the euro project over as long as two decades."
Hat tip: Strange Stuff

"Britain in Europe, the lobby group set up to campaign for membership of the euro, fielded a team of heavyweight economists yesterday to send a message to Prime Minister Tony Blair and Chancellor Gordon Brown that the five economic tests have been passed and they should call a referendum on joining."

Posted by: Bob B | Apr 26, 2006 11:14:53 AM

Whats this I read at Guido's about you being a 70's fashion icon!

Posted by: Steve B | Apr 27, 2006 10:51:57 AM

Speaking of Happiness, or rather its absence for this lady in current news headlines but going back four years ago in 2002 when she was DTI minister:

"Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt has trumpeted the benefits of euro entry for British industry by saying most inward investors supported the move."

Just checking through the news of the annual assessment of inward investment projects in June last year:

"The UK attracted a record number of investment projects from foreign firms last year, official figures have shown. Government body UK Trade and Investment said nearly 40,000 jobs were created in 2004/05 from 1,066 investment projects."

Staying outside the Eurozone doesn't seem to have done any harm to Britain's ability to attract inward investment projects. What with "Best year for the NHS", on the evidence the lady seems to have a definite problem in engaging with reality.

Posted by: Bob B | Apr 27, 2006 1:08:27 PM