Recession? what recession??

[desprateseagull]

$300 MILLION, for a painting... FFS.

Imagine how many people that money could feed / house / treat for disease etc..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31183733

 

[Goldstone1976]

$300 MILLION, for a painting... FFS.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31183733

Yeah, but it's quite a nice one to be fair. Paint's quite thick too. And they're oils, not watercolours.

 

[Beach Hut]

Learn the basic rules of any recession, the rich get richer

 

[Guy Fawkes]

We've been out of a recession for quite a while now

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/491884/Recession-is-over-for-Britain

 

[A mex eyecan]

The problem this time is that the recession's meant to be over - and yet the rich are still getting richer, astronomically so.

While the rest of us are made to compete like rats for the remaining scraps of wealth. Qatar epitomises this, given the pathetic wages and treatment of their labourers, yet the ruling classes spunk £190m on a what is a pretty average painting.

don't even think it's average ... anyone who spends that type of money on a piece of so called art clearly has more money than sense, to the degree that they are obvioulsy unfit to posess so much of it.

Maybe there could just about be an argument for someone to have so much wealth but only if they had the brains and morality to ensure that it was used to help good causes and help people who were genuinely in need .... but I don't think there would be many of such candidates around do you?

 

[beorhthelm]

the Qatari's never had a recession.

and if we are wanting to address the transfer of wealth from us to the Gulf states, we need to get serious about alternative energy sources naming nuclear or fracking. or of course "green" renewable sources at three to four times the cost so substantially higher energy bills.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

the Qatari's never had a recession.

and if we are wanting to address the transfer of wealth from us to the Gulf states, we need to get serious about alternative energy sources naming nuclear or fracking. or of course "green" renewable sources at three to four times the cost so substantially higher energy bills.

I didn't think Fracking was fully costed.....so how can you something is 3 times it's cost?

 

[BadFish]

the Qatari's never had a recession.

and if we are wanting to address the transfer of wealth from us to the Gulf states, we need to get serious about alternative energy sources naming nuclear or fracking. or of course "green" renewable sources at three to four times the cost so substantially higher energy bills.

Why do engery bills need to be higher. All my electricity comes from Hydro electricity and is cheaper than most other providers. Green resources shouldn't need to be more expensive.

 

[Triggaaar]

$300 MILLION, for a painting... FFS.

Imagine how many people that money could feed / house / treat for disease etc..

So has $300 million dollars worth of food, housing or medicine disappeared or something? Or has the money just moved from one rich person to another? Is the person who has the money now, less likely to put any of it towards the things you'd like it spent on?

 

[beorhthelm]

I didn't think Fracking was fully costed.....so how can you something is 3 times it's cost?

i was rather think ing of the current rates, based on gas/coal mix. wind/solar is 3-4t times the cost overall, and then you need to maintain gas (or hydro) backups at substantial capital costs.

Why do engery bills need to be higher. All my electricity comes from Hydro electricity and is cheaper than most other providers. Green resources shouldn't need to be more expensive.

Hydro is great (best probably) but limited in scale, there arent many locations suitable and making more isnt without its burden either (flooding substantial areas). green energy resources are more expensive because they are inefficient, which is not to say burning coal and gas isnt, just they are so cheap the inefficienies are ignored. we subsidise green energy substantially to make it viable, and dont count for a whole bunch of unseen costs such as the production of the materials that go into those wind turbines and PV panels (exporting the carbon emissions and pollution to China).

 

[Dan Aitch]

How much would it be worth if she had her ti... nah, forget it.

 

[BadFish]

i was rather think ing of the current rates, based on gas/coal mix. wind/solar is 3-4t times the cost overall, and then you need to maintain gas (or hydro) backups at substantial capital costs.



Hydro is great (best probably) but limited in scale, there arent many locations suitable and making more isnt without its burden either (flooding substantial areas). green energy resources are more expensive because they are inefficient, which is not to say burning coal and gas isnt, just they are so cheap the inefficienies are ignored. we subsidise green energy substantially to make it viable, and dont count for a whole bunch of unseen costs such as the production of the materials that go into those wind turbines and PV panels (exporting the carbon emissions and pollution to China).

This is obviously still in debate

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...cheapest-energy-unpublished-eu-analysis-finds

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...-high-as-expensive-turbines-built-at-sea.html

The first article suggests that overall the cost of renewables is less than oil/coal. A quick glance over the first article would suggest that much of the cost is in the set up of solar panels and building of wind turbines. It would also be logical to assume that the renewables technololgy would become cheaper as it progresses and becomes more widely used.

I think I need to do a little more research before I accept your 3-4 times the cost figure. Any chance you could post where you got your figures from?

 

[beorhthelm]

The first article suggests that overall the cost of renewables is less than oil/coal. [...]

I think I need to do a little more research before I accept your 3-4 times the cost figure.

the first article references onshore wind in particular which is a good deal cheaper than offshore. you know how easy it is to get onshore farms built. and then to a substantial scale? when you resarch, you'll find the numbers vary wildly on the cost of most renewables because of the number of variables, so the cheapest onshore wind can be less than some coal. trouble is, that isnt going to scale out. 3-4 times is based on the industry composite comparison (probably UK focused numbers i've read), blend of in service renewables v blend of in service fossil burners. and there's hard cash subsidies being paid to make up the gap.

the great hope was renewables would become cheaper with increased scale and new innovation, trouble is this hasnt happened. we've imported cheap to manufacture PV from China, and tried offshore wind at massive extra cost. and both require redundant standby fossil capacity, costed and paid for that have to be factored into the total costs, often overlooked in the simplistic numbers. this farce has driven us away from two known improvments, cleaner coal (with carbon capture) and nuclear, which woul be producing energy more cheaply and cleanly if we had diverted the subsidies into research there.

 

[BadFish]

the first article references onshore wind in particular which is a good deal cheaper than offshore. you know how easy it is to get onshore farms built. and then to a substantial scale? when you resarch, you'll find the numbers vary wildly on the cost of most renewables because of the number of variables, so the cheapest onshore wind can be less than some coal. trouble is, that isnt going to scale out. 3-4 times is based on the industry composite comparison (probably UK focused numbers i've read), blend of in service renewables v blend of in service fossil burners. and there's hard cash subsidies being paid to make up the gap.

the great hope was renewables would become cheaper with increased scale and new innovation, trouble is this hasnt happened. we've imported cheap to manufacture PV from China, and tried offshore wind at massive extra cost. and both require redundant standby fossil capacity, costed and paid for that have to be factored into the total costs, often overlooked in the simplistic numbers. this farce has driven us away from two known improvments, cleaner coal (with carbon capture) and nuclear, which woul be producing energy more cheaply and cleanly if we had diverted the subsidies into research there.

Any chance of a link to those figures?

 

[beorhthelm]

Any chance of a link to those figures?

not specifically, though this will give the broad brushstokes.

 

[Hampster Gull]

We are not in a recession.

 

[Megazone]

A picture can speak $300 million worth of words.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

Makes me sick how much "art work" is worth!

 

[Seasidesage]

Could've got a third of Ronaldo for that. Waste of money

 

[1234andcounting]

This is not a comment on the painting as a work of art, although I do think it is a wonderful painting, but in this case this painting is not art. Whoever bought it, whether it be the Qatari royal family, some Russian plutocrat (aka gangster) or some tax dodging Italian business man, they did it as a store of wealth, in case anything else in their broad portfolio loses all its value. Art, as with one or two other investments, does perform fairly well.

You don't seriously think they are going to hang it in their living room and look at it, do you?