Preparedness for when

fuddle

Frugalsod I am not sure why you felt the need to PM this response but please may I express great exception to you directing it to me and any possible circumstances I may be in, what I would do or how I would feel.

For the benefit of the thread here is what you wrote to me:

Could you elaborate please?




Quote:

That statement Frugalsod is why our country, in my opinion, is goosed.

Frugalsod Today, 7:49 PM

Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan




Join Date: Jul 2013

Posts: 2,737



Could you elaborate please?

Quote:

That statement Frugalsod is why our country, in my opinion, is goosed.


I would have thought that say £10, 000 diverted from normal improvements on the home rather than repairing weather damage was not so good for you personally.

You could have used that money for starting a new business, a mortgage repayment, pension top up, an educational course or debt repayments all of which would have helped you one way or another. Having to fix a problem that could have been avoided is not a good use of resources. You would of course have additional future expenses because of higher insurance. All of which eats into your disposable money for anything else that you would have purchased or invested in. This ignores any potential drop in value because some rent and so would not be losers in that regard. The landlord might get his property fixed but would also lose many months income.

If you had purchases home flood defences that had saved your home then it would have been worthwhile but that is the purpose of insurance except that you had effectively self insured.

My point was that weather repairs while they do boost the economic activity of the nation do nothing for the longer term which your other spending could have achieved. Have I explained myself better?

_______

When you suggest that increased economic activity for local businesses isn't a good thing because it could detract from buying a new car is what I was getting at.

No one wants to pay for repairs, use their savings or reduce debt repayments (if that's an option) etc but when SHTF what we want goes out the window in favour of necessity.

That's what I was getting at. Please may I ask that you keep it public on the forum? Thanks.

Frugalsod

fuddle wrote: »

Frugalsod I am not sure why you felt the need to PM this response but please may I express great exception to you directing it to me and any possible circumstances I may be in, what I would do or how I would feel.

For the benefit of the thread here is what you wrote to me:

Could you elaborate please?




Quote:

That statement Frugalsod is why our country, in my opinion, is goosed.

Frugalsod Today, 7:49 PM

Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan




Join Date: Jul 2013

Posts: 2,737



Could you elaborate please?

Quote:

That statement Frugalsod is why our country, in my opinion, is goosed.


I would have thought that say £10, 000 diverted from normal improvements on the home rather than repairing weather damage was not so good for you personally.

You could have used that money for starting a new business, a mortgage repayment, pension top up, an educational course or debt repayments all of which would have helped you one way or another. Having to fix a problem that could have been avoided is not a good use of resources. You would of course have additional future expenses because of higher insurance. All of which eats into your disposable money for anything else that you would have purchased or invested in. This ignores any potential drop in value because some rent and so would not be losers in that regard. The landlord might get his property fixed but would also lose many months income.

If you had purchases home flood defences that had saved your home then it would have been worthwhile but that is the purpose of insurance except that you had effectively self insured.

My point was that weather repairs while they do boost the economic activity of the nation do nothing for the longer term which your other spending could have achieved. Have I explained myself better?

_______

When you suggest that increased economic activity for local businesses isn't a good thing because it could detract from buying a new car is what I was getting at.

No one wants to pay for repairs, use their savings or reduce debt repayments (if that's an option) etc but when SHTF what we want goes out the window in favour of necessity.

That's what I was getting at. Please may I ask that you keep it public on the forum? Thanks.

I was trying to make sense of your comment. I have absolutely no idea of your circumstances and have no need to know. If you have been flooded you have my sympathies and support. My question was what that I could not make sense of your comment and what aspect it was about.

My comment was more about the redirection of personal funds to fix a weather related event, rather than something more productive like setting up a business. If you were planning to use that money for an extension which would have been through a local builder that would have been positive for the economy. While a builder may be fixing someones home anyway that would mean a redirection of personal funds away from other activities. The fact is that someone who was flooded would not be able to work which would be overall negative for the economy because they were at home organising a rebuild or refurbishment of a home. That might offset the fact that the builder was fixing a home.

I am very much in support of flood prevention measures because of the other down stream impacts. Such as people being unable to work or having extra expenses as a result. If all traffic had to travel 100 miles on each journey that would add to GDP because of the additional expenses but would lower national productivity because people had additional costs in order to achieve the same overall output. Higher insurance costs might boost insurance companies revenues and GDP but not profits and national wealth. Though these higher costs would mean lower expenditure elsewhere. These are why they are not always beneficial.

I was not attacking you or being critical. I am sorry if I offended you.

calicocat

Frugalsod wrote: »

A new threat to deal with: Honey Laundering.

http://www.livescience.com/28039-honey-laundering.html

:eek:


Jeeze.....you just can't trust anything or anyone these days can you..!

I hope this isn't the case with manuka honey, I sometimes use that on my skin to make it heal quicker.

Quite a funny panhandle for it though.....:D

nuatha

calicocat wrote: »

:eek:


Jeeze.....you just can't trust anything or anyone these days can you..!

I hope this isn't the case with manuka honey, I sometimes use that on my skin to make it heal quicker.

Quite a funny panhandle for it though.....:D

I remember a radio interview last summer production of Manuka honey is around 1,700 tonnes, UK consumption accounts for 1,800 tonnes and worldwide consumption is around 10,000 tonnes. So it definitely affects your Manuka honey, sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Mojisola

calicocat wrote: »

I hope this isn't the case with manuka honey, I sometimes use that on my skin to make it heal quicker.

nuatha wrote: »

I remember a radio interview last summer production of Manuka honey is around 1,700 tonnes, UK consumption accounts for 1,800 tonnes and worldwide consumption is around 10,000 tonnes. So it definitely affects your Manuka honey, sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

It's a real scandal how much cheaper stuff is passed off as Manuka!

Buy from local beekeepers who don't heat treat their honey - that will be just as good for healing.

calicocat

I'll be knocking that on the head then.

I have been using coconut oil recently....but how true is that I wonder..?

moneyistooshorttomention

calicocat wrote: »

:eek:


Jeeze.....you just can't trust anything or anyone these days can you..!

I hope this isn't the case with manuka honey, I sometimes use that on my skin to make it heal quicker.

Quite a funny panhandle for it though.....:D

Errrrrr....Calico...I don't quite know how to break it to you - but apparently there is one heck of a lot more "manuka honey" sold than is actually produced iyswim:cool:. I did read the statistics a while back somewhere and the difference between amount actually produced and the amount of stuff labelled "manuka honey" would appear to be down to some "sugar syrup" (which is what most commercial honey is basically) being labelled as "manuka honey".

I suspect sugar syrup (mislabelled honey), real honey and genuine manuka honey probably count about the same for the purposes of healing skin - though a naturopath, for instance, would know better than me.

Personally - I've been buying real honey for the last few years (ie organic and raw) and using that - knowing that even if it aint manuka - it is actually genuine honey.

Yep...I've had "discussions" with bee-keepers using conventional modern methods of producing "honey" and I'm not convinced I'd be buying identical honey to what I could have gathered for myself direct from a hive a few hundred years back for instance (ie before sugar became available to feed to bees).

EDIT; Just read Nuatha's comment re production figures. I rest my case.

Mojisola

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Yep...I've had "discussions" with bee-keepers using conventional modern methods of producing "honey" and I'm not convinced I'd be buying identical honey to what I could have gathered for myself direct from a hive a few hundred years back for instance (ie before sugar became available to feed to bees).

Conventional beekeepers feed sugar syrup to their bees over the winter but the honey that's taken from the hive during the season is made naturally by the bees.

We use top bar hives and leave the honey in the hives until the spring so that the bees can use their stores if they need them during the winter. It means less honey for us but I think it keeps the colonies healthier.

nuatha

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Yep...I've had "discussions" with bee-keepers using conventional modern methods of producing "honey" and I'm not convinced I'd be buying identical honey to what I could have gathered for myself direct from a hive a few hundred years back for instance (ie before sugar became available to feed to bees).

There's a lot of beekeepers who don't use sugar. I've had the "pleasure" of being stung by the bees that supply my honey and apart from the odd stolen sip of sugared tea I know there's no refined sugar goes into their honey (nor the mead that comes from the same source). Keepers using sugar syrup are generally stripping too much honey from the hive - generally a hive will produce around three times what it needs to survive the winter and most hides yield around 10-12Kg surplus, stripping more and feeding sugar syrup is probably down to mismanagement or greed.

cross posted with Mojisola.

silverwhistle

Interesting article that, in The Guardian, about land use and the massive subsidies certain people can get for improving the grouse shooting... In Italy, by contrast, they are very strict on land use regulations, at least in the area with which I am familiar. So unauthorised tree felling is looked upon seriously and active reafforestation takes place. Even then there are issues with heavy rain (and snow melt) and the drainage measures taken in the watershed of the Dora Baltea (for example) have caused grumbles lower down at Turin. The river during winter does at least furnish a very handy supply of aggregate as they lower the dry bed!

I have sympathy for the councils re housebuilding. They refuse planning permission and the developers appeal and appeal... Certainly local people objecting to new developments are now much more aware of drainage issues.

There was another interesting article (in the Guardian again, I think) regarding the massive land banks the major builders have. The lack of new housing in this country is known, but in the context of this discussion I wonder how many of those plots are on flood plains or at risk...