SammyLeeWasOffside wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 12:50 pm
When there were energy crises under nationalisation people's energy bills still went through the roof.
In the 70s and early 80s people spent as much of their household income on energy as right now.
The shock right now is we have got used to cheap and readily available energy. At least some of that is due to competition and more open markets.
however flipping the same thinking around a bit
if we would still be liable to the same rising costs under gov control as private wouldnt it be better for any profits to go into the system rather than taken out by energy companies as profits?
also with issues like we have now we can always do what the french do and suck up some of the cost to the gov rather than pass it onto the consumer
for example we are all getting X amount of help in october etc.. that is going to provide a bit of profit to a private company and cost the tax payer money
where as we owned our own utilities the same help could be applied directly without providing profit at the same time
OFT wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 12:42 pm
Exactly, it's all bollox.
Why should the public be expected to gamble on the price, it should be the job of government. If they don't want to govern they shouldn't try and get elected.
Now clearly this mob aren't capable of running anything but if you hadn't guessed, I was and remain dead against the privatisation of the utilities.
The government are awful. I’d trust a random number generator ahead of them. The idea that a government hedging programme would have protected everyone is nonsense. You’d simply pay through the tax pool. The civil service couldn’t pay the salaries of the people they’d need to hire to run the thing effectively, it would be toxic.
You are still keen on spending tens of billions on something that largely wouldn’t have protected the consumer here?
sendô wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 1:10 pm
All that investment in renewables is really paying for **** all right now, isn't it?
Time to get the coal out boys.
even in the crisis the last thing we want to do is make a further crisis
under investing in the sector for so long has helped fuel the energy crisis.. imagine if we had a decent nuclear set up.. had got more roofs covered in panels and not blocked tidal power we might actually be a much better position than we are now
could however be paid for by the gov and not the consumer for a bit
Yes it was tongue in cheek lads, but we're showing our over reliance on imported fossil fuels.
Then again, since when has the government ever looked at what is best for the country as a whole ahead of what can make them and their chums the most money or political influence in the short term?
mumbles87 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 12:55 pm
however flipping the same thinking around a bit
if we would still be liable to the same rising costs under gov control as private wouldnt it be better for any profits to go into the system rather than taken out by energy companies as profits?
also with issues like we have now we can always do what the french do and suck up some of the cost to the gov rather than pass it onto the consumer
for example we are all getting X amount of help in october etc.. that is going to provide a bit of profit to a private company and cost the tax payer money
where as we owned our own utilities the same help could be applied directly without providing profit at the same time
1) what makes you think that state, which has been unable to regulate the sector effectively, would be competent enough to run it at a profit?
2) you already have a price cap, you can subsidise, so you don’t need to nationalise to reduce prices - that you don’t like that solution doesn’t mean it isn’t feasible.
3) you’ve rather ignored the elephant in the room of the tens of billions you’d need to spend to gain not a great deal apart from making some people feel better, and by doing so you would not have protected the nation from the source of this crisis.
EvilC wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 1:30 pm
The government are awful. I’d trust a random number generator ahead of them. The idea that a government hedging programme would have protected everyone is nonsense. You’d simply pay through the tax pool. The civil service couldn’t pay the salaries of the people they’d need to hire to run the thing effectively, it would be toxic.
But someone is being paid those salaries to run the private companies so why not the government.
I suppose we'll never know now will we, but it seems the government are quite capable, enthusiastic even, to spend on their pet projects such as The B word and that's a disaster.
Even HS2 , and I realise that's not all on this mob, is costing billions AND getting trimmed from its original purpose to connect all the Northern cities.
I just firmly believe that the government of the day should have total control of the utilies and transport, even if it runs at a loss.
Anyway, it's clear we're not going to agree on most of this but with respect for your opinion I'm stepping away mate
OFT wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 1:51 pm
But someone is being paid those salaries to run the private companies so why not the government.
I suppose we'll never know now will we, but it seems the government are quite capable, enthusiastic even, to spend on their pet projects such as The B word and that's a disaster.
Even HS2 , and I realise that's not all on this mob, is costing billions AND getting trimmed from its original purpose to connect all the Northern cities.
I just firmly believe that the government of the day should have total control of the utilies and transport, even if it runs at a loss.
Anyway, it's clear we're not going to agree on most of this but with respect for your opinion I'm stepping away mate
Because you cannot pay a civil servant x million quid. It is politically toxic. So the CEO and all the senior staff will leave.
sendô wrote: ↑Tue Jul 19, 2022 2:26 pm
I'm surprised Eva Dorres allowed the BBC to print this. No doubt another round of threats about abolishing the license fee are inbound.
simon hammer wrote: ↑Tue Jul 19, 2022 2:54 pm
Fastest drop in pay since records began, rising food prices, high petrol and diesel prices, ridiculous energy prices.
Pay isn't dropping AND the the other things are rising. Pay doesn't go as far because the other things have gone up.
SammyLeeWasOffside wrote: ↑Tue Jul 19, 2022 4:22 pm
Pay isn't dropping AND the the other things are rising. Pay doesn't go as far because the other things have gone up.
What do you make of the BBC story that says this:
UK pay falls at fastest rate on record as inflation hits.
Between March and May, pay excluding bonuses was down 2.8% from a year earlier when adjusted for inflation - the fastest drop since records began.
I'm not up in the nature of the workers dispute with RM but I'm not sure that celebrating going on strike like that is really setting the appropriate tone?
SammyLeeWasOffside wrote: ↑Tue Jul 19, 2022 5:02 pm
It's misleading. Pay hasn't fallen inflation has risen. Hence my first post. It's the rising costs that make pay not go so far.
Ah. So the value of the wage hasn't gone down, but the price of everything has gone up.
Can that be solved by raising people's wages? Or would that just push prices up more, leading to the need for higher wages again, which means prices go up again etc etc...like a vicious spiral?
Or do prices need to come down while wages remain as they are?
The utopia is obviously high wages, low prices...but that's off the cards in the he system we currently operate in.
And what are your thoughts on money and currency being totally different things? With the pound not having any store of value backing it, it's purely a fiat currency...and every single fiat currency has failed over history. Can you see that happening with the pound, and if so when?
I've been watching this guy...I find the whole thing absolutely fascinating despite only having grasped the basics. I've gone through all of the videos twice, and will continue to go through them until it sinks in.
simon hammer wrote: ↑Tue Jul 19, 2022 6:12 pm
Ah. So the value of the wage hasn't gone down, but the price of everything has gone up.
You got it
I suspect a mix of both will happen. The problem right now is the speed of rises in crucial commodities. Time, gradual pay rises and a level of market correction to leave things higher than before but more affordable to people at that point would be my guess - for what it's worth.
On currency/money my guess would be most currencies will finally vanish as we all get more global. We mostly thing in terms of numbers on a screen these days rather than tangible coins anyway. It's not that big a leap from that to us all using one set of numbers on a screen. Probably be known as the musk
