So What do we think of "Red Ed"
Comments
-
Unless the capping you are referring to is the cap on retail prices - which basically squeezed power station profits since the traders were screwing them and they were unable to pass the increase in cost on.
But caps didn't cause the problem, nor did they make it easier to manipulate.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Unless the capping you are referring to is the cap on retail prices - which basically squeezed power station profits since the traders were screwing them and they were unable to pass the increase in cost on.
But caps didn't cause the problem, nor did they make it easier to manipulate.
I think the worst aspect of this is that it's setting up another group of 'too big to fail' companies for another taxpayer bail-out. Think about what's actually likely to happen:
1) the retailers will assess the risk, and start pricing it in to retail charges right now.
2) the 'cap' will then turn into a fixed price.
3) Global energy prices go down, the companies rake in even more profit. Shareholders do well, but at least we get some new power stations.
4) Global energy prices go up a bit, profits squeezed. Pain probably split between investment budgets and shareholders. Better hope we don't get another really cold winter!
5) Global energy prices go up a lot, company viability starts to look a bit shaky - all of them, all at the same time, because they've all got the same structural issue. So we end up having to step in and bail them out. And endure another 5 years of whinging about unbalanced risk/reward.
I suppose one person's 'taxpayer bailout' is another person's 'nationalisation' and maybe that's what they're actually heading for. If so, perhaps they should just have the guts to say so!!0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:arran77 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:
Appreciate this is beside the op but this is incorrect. Problems started when power market was liberalised in a half cocked way which made it ripe for trading 'abuse' (see enron's west coast power fine) and introducing price ceilings was a response to that and had a reasonable if limited success.SpainSte wrote:Fixing the price of energy probably won't work, the best example of this in a similar economy is what happened in California 200/01.
This is not correct, the energy crisis in California was as a result of three things, power companies manipulation of the market by shutting down power stations (as you state RC), illegal shutting down of supply pipelines AND prices being capped.
Price ceilings were not a response to these problems, they were one of the causes :roll:
The capping started later. Traders would, for example, book far too much power to go down one line. Once it became clear the line couldn't take all the power the state would be forced to buy at a higher premium rate. These rates would go totally batshit high. Hence introducing the caps later on.
No, instead of prices being allowed to stimulate lower demand and counteract the effect of restricted supply, the Californian authorities remained focused on even more price control and this was well before the energy crisis of 2000 / 2001.
Around the time of the energy crisis these price controls were replaced with ‘soft caps’ which meant that bids for energy higher than the cap could happen if it could be justified. This limited prices but still allowed cost-based increases above the wholesale price level.
This meant the authorities could acquire ‘out of the market’ energy and help California avoid blackouts and ‘games’ that the energy companies were playing although to be fair it wasn’t a complete success as manipulation still occurred because energy was exported from California but then had to be bought back in, of course at a higher price :roll:"Arran, you are like the Tony Benn of smut. You have never diluted your depravity and always stand by your beliefs. You have my respect sir and your wife my pity"
seanoconn0 -
Here's some nice caps.
None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
daviesee wrote:
Frankly my dear, i dont give a damn.GiantMike wrote:You mean here ARE some nice caps. Conjugate the verb to agree with the the subject. "Arran, you are like the Tony Benn of smut. You have never diluted your depravity and always stand by your beliefs. You have my respect sir and your wife my pity"
seanoconn0 -
They've missed one out.0
-
-
-
Making himself look like a right knob for not having done this when Labour was in government and he was Energy Minister.0
-
I'd like to see all utilities brought back into public ownership, that won't happen. Neither will this.
At taxpayer expense build nuclear power stations and then become the 7th power supplier.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Bloody hell Frank! What took you so long - I had given up on you. 0
-
FFS I hope Milipede doesn't read this thread, he might get ideas even more impractical than the ones he's already suggested to bribe voters with their own money.Frank the tank wrote:I'd like to see all utilities brought back into public ownership, that won't happen. Neither will this.
At taxpayer expense build nuclear power stations and then become the 7th power supplier."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Everything comes to he who waits, apparently.Ballysmate wrote:Bloody hell Frank! What took you so long - I had given up on you. Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
As I said it won't happen but utilities,transport and health care should be publicly run/owned. Certainly water,warmth and health care are basic human rights and as such should not be up for any kind of commercial exploitation.Stevo 666 wrote:
FFS I hope Milipede doesn't read this thread, he might get ideas even more impractical than the ones he's already suggested to bribe voters with their own money.Frank the tank wrote:I'd like to see all utilities brought back into public ownership, that won't happen. Neither will this.
At taxpayer expense build nuclear power stations and then become the 7th power supplier.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Agree it won't happen - because most people think it's a bad idea. But considering your theory for a minute, food is a pretty basic human right, so are you proposing that we nationalise Tesco?Frank the tank wrote:As I said it won't happen but utilities,transport and health care should be publicly run/owned. Certainly water,warmth and health care are basic human rights and as such should not be up for any kind of commercial exploitation.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
No, 'cos there is room for genuine competition within the supermarket arena, as long as it means farmers are not driven into bankruptcy by them.Stevo 666 wrote:
Agree it won't happen - because most people think it's a bad idea. But considering your theory for a minute, food is a pretty basic human right, so are you proposing that we nationalise Tesco?Frank the tank wrote:As I said it won't happen but utilities,transport and health care should be publicly run/owned. Certainly water,warmth and health care are basic human rights and as such should not be up for any kind of commercial exploitation.
At the very least there should be no VAT on gas/electric same as food.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
If the problem in the energy market is lack of competition between energy companies, then surely it's better to try to increase competition before chucking tens of billions of our hard earned cash into creating a 7th supplier. There are about 6 major supermarket chains and the competition there is OK for you, so how will one extra state owned energy supplier will transform the competitive landscape of the energy market?Frank the tank wrote:
No, 'cos there is room for genuine competition within the supermarket arena, as long as it means farmers are not driven into bankruptcy by them.Stevo 666 wrote:
Agree it won't happen - because most people think it's a bad idea. But considering your theory for a minute, food is a pretty basic human right, so are you proposing that we nationalise Tesco?Frank the tank wrote:As I said it won't happen but utilities,transport and health care should be publicly run/owned. Certainly water,warmth and health care are basic human rights and as such should not be up for any kind of commercial exploitation.
Presumably the same lack of competition concern applies to the other industry sectors you want nationalised, so how does moving to a situation where there is only one supplier with a monopoly position (The State) improve matters?
It's only 5% on power. Food is either zero rated or 20% depending on what type of food, so the average rate of VAT on food is probably higher than on power.Frank the tank wrote:At the very least there should be no VAT on gas/electric same as food."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
how does moving to a situation where there is only one supplier with a monopoly position (The State) improve matters?
Because hopefully (as long as it wasn't the tories) the state wouldn't seek to exploit the nation by profiteering.
I agree with Frank, There are certain things which should not be run on a purely for profit basis.
However I don't think the " State " no matter who would operate on this basis, you only have to look at the 87% taxation they derive on Petrol ( which is just about as near to an essential as many other things)
Subsequent Governments have just about bankrupted us supporting the profiteering of the financial organisations. I would strongly suspect they would use any revenues from regaining the Utilities to subsidise the loses from the balls up made by their friends in the City.
Wonder what they are going to do with Money from Royal Mail?0 -
You're mixing up profit (perfectly healthy) with profiteering (overcharging). BTW The State does profiteering all the time - it's called tax.tim wand wrote:[Because hopefully (as long as it wasn't the tories) the state wouldn't seek to exploit the nation by profiteering.
Classic case of a monopoly supplier overcharging customers who have no choice.
Good example of the State profiteering even when they don't have a monopoly...you just can't trust the State not to rip us off can you.tim wand wrote:I agree with Frank, There are certain things which should not be run on a purely for profit basis.
However I don't think the " State " no matter who would operate on this basis, you only have to look at the 87% taxation they derive on Petrol ( which is just about as near to an essential as many other things)
Again, not profiteering. Even if it was, who was running the country so badly to allow this to happen?tim wand wrote:Subsequent Governments have just about bankrupted us supporting the profiteering of the financial organisations. I would strongly suspect they would use any revenues from regaining the Utilities to subsidise the loses from the balls up made by their friends in the City.
Reduce some of the massive debt pile that the last Labour govt created?tim wand wrote:Wonder what they are going to do with Money from Royal Mail?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Wasn't specifically having a go at the tories (okay I was ).
I think any Government faced with the massive Welfare bill ( yes I know the vast majority of it is pensions and not just JSA ) and the economy deficit we have, is going to automatically look to exploit income (taxing and profiteering) from the things we all have to pay for.
It just amazes me that having privatised most of the Utilities and services once in the National Portfolio (to raise money to get themselves out of a hole) They are now in the vast number of cases owned by Foreign Government ran concerns who profiteer off us to subsidise their domestic markets.0 -
At least we agree that the contry's bills are too high, so there is a logical solution - cut them!tim wand wrote:Wasn't specifically having a go at the tories (okay I was ).
I think any Government faced with the massive Welfare bill ( yes I know the vast majority of it is pensions and not just JSA ) and the economy deficit we have, is going to automatically look to exploit income (taxing and profiteering) from the things we all have to pay for.
It just amazes me that having privatised most of the Utilities and services once in the National Portfolio (to raise money to get themselves out of a hole) They are now in the vast number of cases owned by Foreign Government ran concerns who profiteer off us to subsidise their domestic markets.
A lot of these foreign concerns are actually private, and I'm not so sure they directly subsidise their domestic equivalents, but in any event it cuts both ways. UK outbound investments in overseas concerns are huge and we benefit from the dividend flows coming into the country from these investments."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
