Shell Share Discussion Threads

[essentialinvestor] 03/12/2015 17:28

On the bright side rapid world population growth and urbanisation should
be commodity support, just not today )

[wllmherk] 03/12/2015 17:21

Personally I would stop child benefit altogether, why should the state pay for someones kids, if you want children......support them yourself !

I would take an axe to other benefits as well, the education grant, working families tax credits and disability benefits.

Anyway, not a good day for RDSB, anyone know what time the OPEC meeting is tomorrow, I can see these sub £16 if they don't cut production ?

wllm

[whiskeyinthejar] 03/12/2015 14:13

Problem all over world is that the people who can afford to have babies tend not to have them. The more income people have the fewer babies they have. They call it economic demographic paradox. So children are mostly born into each countries poorist families who have worst diets.

Notable exception is Saudi Arabia which is rich but still has high birth rate. But what they do is restrict access to contraception, provide grants to people who marry young and shackle women to the home.

But there are other policies they should try more of in UK to encourage birth rate like flexible hours in workplaces which suit family life. Reduce housing costs for middle class etc. which reduce unit cost of having kids.

It's just difficult without immigration to get right age distribution when time people live is lengthening and number of kids people have is changing too.

[closetinvestor] 03/12/2015 13:23

waldron 2 Dec'15 - 19:17 - 4529 of 4532

... in other words a government run Ponzi scheme then. Surely not :-)

[losos] 03/12/2015 12:24

EI - "What they need to do is limit child benefit to the first two children,
if you want more then great, pay yourself."

Even I can't say people must have only x number of children, but as you say it seems logical to put a limit on child benefit and even (shock horror) start taxing people extra if they have more than a certain number of sprogs.

But these are hard decisions and will only bring results in 50 or 100 years, what government is the slightest bit interested in taking hard decisions that will only look good in 50 or 100 years !!!

[losos] 03/12/2015 12:16

Fangorn2 - "It isn't a massive increase in the indigenous birth rate though!"

Ha ha !! Better not get onto that one, and I don't really worry 'cos I'll have popped my clogs before it becomes serious ha ha but it's heading that way now and you would have thought that some of these leaders of society would have noticed also, but no they all have their heads firmly stuck in the sand.

[essentialinvestor] 02/12/2015 19:41

What they need to do is limit child benefit to the first two children,
if you want more then great, pay yourself.


Oil tanking, - 4.5% approx.

[waldron] 02/12/2015 19:17

BUT YOU NEED ALL THESE FUTURE YOUNGSTERS TO CONTRIBUTE
TO YOUR STATE PENSION IF YOU ARE LUCKY

[sogoesit] 02/12/2015 12:56

Maybe we should introduce a One-child policy to counter the (new) Two-child policy of China's?
:-)

[fangorn2] 02/12/2015 12:51

@Losos,

"it is the massive increase in birth rate which is really threatening our future"

It isn't a massive increase in the indigenous birth rate though!

[losos] 02/12/2015 12:21

xxxxxy - "But the real problem may be Population Explosion."

Not a 'may be' but IMO a definate problem. I don't think anyone is really taking this seriously and even China (which made a gesture towards controlling the huge and unsustainable population explosion) has recently canceled it's one child policy.

And in the UK we are still paying women to produce kids, any number of kids, and the truth is that while immigration is grabbing the headlines it is the massive increase in birth rate which is really threatening our future.

As shown above solar, wind, wave, all have possibilities but we are a long way from any of them solving the energy needs of the worlds population now let alone in the future.

[scobak] 01/12/2015 20:14

2hoggy. You mention about chopping all the trees down. Now just what did happen to the Sahara Forest?

[xxxxxy] 01/12/2015 19:56

Dividends + Capital Growth = Financial Success + Environmental Concern. But the real problem may be Population Explosion. Difficult conundrum. Just saying, staying with oil.

[gateside] 01/12/2015 19:18

And the capital can just as easily rise 10, 15, or 20% in addition to the 7% dividend.

[imperial3] 01/12/2015 19:14

I just referred to the dividend.Yes,of course,I mind if my capital drops.That applies to all shares which fluctuate.If that is your concern,then you should not be in shares at all.In this case,I look long term.

[eaaxs06] 01/12/2015 18:32

So as long as you're getting 7% income, you don't mind your capital falling 10, 15, 20%?

[imperial3] 01/12/2015 18:20

I am here for the dividend. As long as the maintain it,I am not complaining as far as that is concerned.

[2hoggy] 01/12/2015 17:47

The future,back to being a caveman.Thats if they have not chopped all the trees down for your fuel.lol.

Where did the deserts come from???

[sogoesit] 01/12/2015 17:43

I thought the enviro-fascists were saying the world would end in catastrophe soon if we didnt stop using fossil fuels?
Anyway, I see the "west" has exported all its carbon production to the "east" but dont now have the guts to ban all imports of overseas (carbon) manufactured goods.. typical hypocrites.

At the weekend, however, my heating (gas fired) broke down and, since it was dark, my solar panels didnt dispatch enough heat. It was blowing a gale earlier, which shut down my wind turbine due to excessive wind speed, but when I needed the wind turbine there was no more wind so I was left with the only alternative i had of burning wood in my fireplace!

My Shell dividend will help pay for the repair of my boiler at least!

[grahamite2] 01/12/2015 13:49

Couldn't agree more, 2hoggy. And one thing you didn't mention is that there might be a Republican in the White House in just over a year, which would be a complete game changer for all the alternative fuel stuff.

[2hoggy] 01/12/2015 13:24

Even with slow world growth the use of oil will increase,they talk of other energy sources that will take the place of oil, but it will take a lot longer that any one is admitting.

And all the time the world population is going to increase,next 15 years another over 600 million in Africa and the middle east,they don't all have cars but they will consume oil in other ways,travel,heating,etc.

I still find it amazing how oil was one moment going to run out in the near future and the next thing we are awash with it.I am betting on an increase by next year,and now governments are looking at gas being the way forward as a cleaner method of electricity generation gives oil companies another future.

They will still be around in 100 years and longer, as to change to any other fuel would need the whole world to cooperate 100%,I don't see that happening as their are too many vested interests.

[losos] 01/12/2015 12:26

Fangorn2 - "Do you see POO staying sub $60 two years out??"

Short answer - NO ! but I suppose it may not be much above that number. Five years from now different story. As long as they maintain the divi I aint worried ha ha.

[fangorn2] 01/12/2015 07:39

Because their gearing is circa 15% odd, so they can, at worst, borrow to fund the divi for at least one to two years.

Do you see POO staying sub $60 two years out??

[montyhedge] 01/12/2015 07:34

With this takeover, oil price at a low. How can they maintain this dividend, I think your deluded.