98% 0f 75% vote to strike
Comments
-
Call me Dave should remember better what he received in support for his son. He seems to have forgotten pretty quickly, and with it the reassurances he gave either explicitly or implicitly to others in a similar position.
Its his constant spouting of about his son that makes me dislike the xxxx, as if he the only one to have tragedy in his life.
Anyway the care he would have got would have been different to any of us, as if a top politician is going to be kept waiting at out patients or cancelled appointments.
didnt he claim every available benefit going? one of his more recent MP expense claims was for some staples and paper clips ffs.
as for energy companies, its an industry that used to be in regulated public ownership, sold off with assurances that profiteering would'nt take place, cant be compared to groceries, alot of people still die due to lack of affordable heating.0 -
Possibly because the private health care system relies on the NHS.Can't say I have been impressed by private health care in the UK - which might indicate the problems in the NHS lie in a different area to the ideological ones usually spouted.
You may get a private ward but chances are it will be in an NHS hospital using NHS equipment and employees.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
TBH I don't recall him doing this very much, except right at the time, and I thought he came across as pretty genuine there - and before you object that I'm a Tory fanboi, I can easily spot, like everyone else, when he's being insincere.Its his constant spouting of about his son that makes me dislike the xxxx, as if he the only one to have tragedy in his life.
I have no doubt that if he went private health, as he could easily afford to, or didn't bother claiming expenses he is perfectly entitled to, there would be a chorus of boos for the way he flaunts his wealth (See "wellies")Anyway the care he would have got would have been different to any of us, as if a top politician is going to be kept waiting at out patients or cancelled appointments.
didnt he claim every available benefit going? one of his more recent MP expense claims was for some staples and paper clips ffs.
OT, but this is (for me) the best argument against private healthcare, education etc. - these are all good things, but if those who can afford to divert into privatised services, it removes a big personal incentive to push for improvement in the public services. You can legitimately argue the extent of any policy consequences, but I would suggest that Cameron's attitude to the NHS will be quite different after his personal experience.
This one intrigued me, so I looked it up. Cue lots of lefty newspapers and websites expressing horror at "8X above inflation energy price rises!" - but I couldn't find anywhere any figures comparing the retail cost of energy to the actual price of gas, oil etc. So it may well be that, for one reason or another, the privatised energy market isn't working - but I haven't seen any evidence either way.as for energy companies, its an industry that used to be in regulated public ownership, sold off with assurances that profiteering would'nt take place, cant be compared to groceries, alot of people still die due to lack of affordable heating.
One obvious counter-example would be the whole telecomms industry: what on earth would it be like if good ol' BT was still the monopoly provider? Does anyone remember what it used to be like trying to get a phone installed?0 -
[/quote]
as for energy companies, its an industry that used to be in regulated public ownership, sold off with assurances that profiteering would'nt take place, cant be compared to groceries, alot of people still die due to lack of affordable heating.
and if they paid for heating as a priority they would die due to lack of affordable food because the retail sector is the biggest profit game in town.
Prices did fall with privatisation - but there lies the problem, it is a regulated industry, but under Labour the regulator saw it that the lowest price at any time was in the consumers "best interest" with no view on the longer term, which has turned out to be a shortage of electricity due to lack of incentives for anyone to build new generating capacity. Lets not forget the private ownership of power generation largely went bankrupt in the Blair years, resulting in the ownership transferring to foreign state owned or backed companies, such as EDF, EOn and Iberdrola.
It was Labour's 2 moratoria on gas power station building at the behest of the NUM that killed new gas fired generation capacity and why even free gas would not result in low electricity costs today. Oil price is irrelevant to the UK electricity market - except for a few diesel generators who already receive massive subsidies.0 -
This one intrigued me, so I looked it up. Cue lots of lefty newspapers and websites expressing horror at "8X above inflation energy price rises!" - but I couldn't find anywhere any figures comparing the retail cost of energy to the actual price of gas, oil etc. So it may well be that, for one reason or another, the privatised energy market isn't working - but I haven't seen any evidence either way.
One obvious counter-example would be the whole telecomms industry: what on earth would it be like if good ol' BT was still the monopoly provider? Does anyone remember what it used to be like trying to get a phone installed?
Both Ofwat and Ofgen have reported this week that consumers are paying over the odds for our water and electricity.0 -
Both Ofwat and Ofgen have reported this week that consumers are paying over the odds for our water and electricity.
But not that the suppliers were profiteering, that they were not was established in earlier investigations when the same accusations of prices not moving downwards after 2009 was made, and in other investigations since.
There is a more than a subtle difference between profiteering and paying over the odds. The market as regulated may well be working as the regulators set it to do and that itself is producing prices over the odds. It is not a free market, it is a heavily regulated one, even if compared to oil the degree of vertical integration without the creation of transparent markets for transfer pricing is amazing.
One measure of paying over the odds is comparison to the European forward trading price, which is often lower than the UK wholesale,reflecting a more efficient market and a different generation mix, especially much higher renewables. Damn the EU for being more market oriented and lower in price I say, will they never get it right
How dare they have market oriented policies contrary to the Tories that benefit consumers and industry. Bring on Brexit. 0 -
0
-
[
This one intrigued me, so I looked it up. Cue lots of lefty newspapers and websites expressing horror at "8X above inflation energy price rises!" - but I couldn't find anywhere any figures comparing the retail cost of energy to the actual price of gas, oil etc. So it may well be that, for one reason or another, the privatised energy market isn't working - but I haven't seen any evidence either way.
One obvious counter-example would be the whole telecomms industry: what on earth would it be like if good ol' BT was still the monopoly provider? Does anyone remember what it used to be like trying to get a phone installed?
I'll give you an example.
I used to headhunt physical commodity traders, including gas traders.
During 2013, volatility in gas prices was so low for such a long time that a number of gas trading desks were shut down.
Towards the end of that period where all I was receiving was calls from people who had been let go from these desks, I received a call from British gas explaining to me that the reason my gas prices had risen was because of high volatility in the gas markets.
Now, I knew that was a flat out lie. Presumably whoever decided to write that for their customer callers also knew that.
So, granted, that's only one data point, but in the one instance I knew a bit about what was going on, I found them out to be lying. So I'm fairly sceptical about how honest those firms want to be.
Their leaders have a duty to maximise profits. Unfortunately they do not have a duty to providing energy at a price that is socially useful - i.e. enough to cover costs & provide incentives to improve the service, but not so high it strangles local business.
--
ultimately some things are natural monopolies. In those instances, I'd argue (and it's fairly basic economics) that having a private enterprise in charge of a natural monopoly isn't particularly desirable.0 -
There's a big difference between an oligopoly where there is some competition and a monopoly where there is none. If you make the state the supplier it will be by definition a monopoly.
Time for another round of leftie mythbusters. Let's look at British Gas profits and see just how much they are making. In the last full year published accounts for 2014:
https://www.centrica.com/investors/financial-reporting/annual-report
they made a profit before tax of £1,649m on turnover of £26,571m. That's a pre tax profit margin of 6.2%. Not exactly excessive. Centrica is not all retail but other sources put the retail profit margin at 5%.
So tell me what you think a socially useful price cut would be that still allows them to make any profit?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
There's a big difference between an oligopoly where there is some competition and a monopoly where there is none. If you make the state the supplier it will be by definition a monopoly.
Time for another round of leftie mythbusters. Let's look at British Gas profits and see just how much they are making. In the last full year published accounts for 2014:
https://www.centrica.com/investors/financial-reporting/annual-report
they made a profit before tax of £1,649m on turnover of £26,571m. That's a pre tax profit margin of 6.2%. Not exactly excessive. Centrica is not all retail but other sources put the retail profit margin at 5%.
So tell me what you think a socially useful price cut would be that still allows them to make any profit?
Vitol's profit margins are around 1%. What's your point?
Are you the profit margin excess arbiter?
I'm in no position to pick an appropriate energy price. Might not be one. But you can see the conflict of interest between the interest of the shareholders of the private firm and the broader society that relies on their services.
In this specific instance (far away from health, but anyway), big 6 are currently being investigated for price collusion (effectively creating a monopoly - not difficult in an industry which tends towards natural monopolies).0 -
My point is pretty obvious. There is not much scope for energy bill reduction that has much meaningful impact to the average bill if the company is to make a profit. If they are price fixing, they are not doing it very well with margins like that.There's a big difference between an oligopoly where there is some competition and a monopoly where there is none. If you make the state the supplier it will be by definition a monopoly.
Time for another round of leftie mythbusters. Let's look at British Gas profits and see just how much they are making. In the last full year published accounts for 2014:
https://www.centrica.com/investors/financial-reporting/annual-report
they made a profit before tax of £1,649m on turnover of £26,571m. That's a pre tax profit margin of 6.2%. Not exactly excessive. Centrica is not all retail but other sources put the retail profit margin at 5%.
So tell me what you think a socially useful price cut would be that still allows them to make any profit?
Vitol's profit margins are around 1%. What's your point?
Are you the profit margin excess arbiter?
I'm in no position to pick an appropriate energy price. Might not be one. But you can see the conflict of interest between the interest of the shareholders of the private firm and the broader society that relies on their services.
In this specific instance (far away from health, but anyway), big 6 are currently being investigated for price collusion (effectively creating a monopoly - not difficult in an industry which tends towards natural monopolies).
That said, why should energy companies be effectively charities but other sectors do not need to be?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Been here before, people.
viewtopic.php?f=30005&t=12950178Re: 7,200 deaths
Postby Ballysmate » Wed Nov 27, 2013 10:34 am
I have to agree that in this day and age it is a scandal that people are seemingly dying for lack of warmth.
But to play devil's advocate and I can't envisage anyone coming on here to defend the energy companies, here goes.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... mers-ofgem
This is the Guardian, not the Mail or Telegraph. A profit of £53 per year per customer in 2011. Profit margins rising from 2.8 to 4.3% in 2012 How many critics on here work for companies with such margins?
Yes, the overall bottom lines are eye watering, but so are the risks and costs of development for these companies.
I must admit that I was a bit surprised that the energy companies had been making a pound a week out of me. All those who think it a disgrace that a company can make such a profit, remember that figure the next time you willingly hand over your well earned cash for an overpriced coffee or fancy bottled water/ beer.
Not defending fuel poverty at all, just trying to give a different angle.0 -
My point is pretty obvious. There is not much scope for energy bill reduction that has much meaningful impact to the average bill if the company is to make a profit. If they are price fixing, they are not doing it very well with margins like that.There's a big difference between an oligopoly where there is some competition and a monopoly where there is none. If you make the state the supplier it will be by definition a monopoly.
Time for another round of leftie mythbusters. Let's look at British Gas profits and see just how much they are making. In the last full year published accounts for 2014:
https://www.centrica.com/investors/financial-reporting/annual-report
they made a profit before tax of £1,649m on turnover of £26,571m. That's a pre tax profit margin of 6.2%. Not exactly excessive. Centrica is not all retail but other sources put the retail profit margin at 5%.
So tell me what you think a socially useful price cut would be that still allows them to make any profit?
Vitol's profit margins are around 1%. What's your point?
Are you the profit margin excess arbiter?
I'm in no position to pick an appropriate energy price. Might not be one. But you can see the conflict of interest between the interest of the shareholders of the private firm and the broader society that relies on their services.
In this specific instance (far away from health, but anyway), big 6 are currently being investigated for price collusion (effectively creating a monopoly - not difficult in an industry which tends towards natural monopolies).
That said, why should energy companies be effectively charities but other sectors do not need to be?
In answer to your last question - a charity is an organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need. or he voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need. (look it up), so they're not.
Secondly, I'd suggest that using profit margins as evidence of monopolistic behaviour is stupid. After all, you, the free marketeer, should be familiar with incentives. What are the incentives for the monopoly to remain lean and competitive? A monopoly can still be charging way more than it would if it had genuine competition, but instead they remain flabby. That's you main problem with state run enterprise - they get flabby and inefficient because there is no competition.
Things like energy, health - they are used by everyone, and they have enormous social value (and cost if they aren't around). It's not for nothing there isn't a spot market for water - it's too important.
That's why California started regulating power trading so much, after power traders effectively starved the state of power (to the point where there were rolling blackouts) in order to hike up the price and make a thick profit.
That wasn't helping society - that was making things worse.
You can see this, you just don't want to. You're defending flabby monopolistic enterprise because you feel you should because 'those on the left' don't like them. But, perversely, the problems with those firms are the same problems you so despise about state run stuff. A free marketer must believe in fair competition.
You should be familiar with 'negative externalities'. You seem oblivious to those, and are happy to tolerate them all, even when they dwarf the positive externalities.
Basically, in defending private monopolies, you're defending flabby, inefficient anticompetitive markets.0 -
I'm sorry, which private monoploy is this we're talking about? Last time I looked there were quite a few power companies to choose from.
The main cause of excessive energy bills is that people don't shop around: consumers choosing monopoly through default.0 -
California is a poor example - they banned the building of power stations and then endured the result of power shortages. It is too easy to blame Enron, but regulation set up a system that made them power short. Ironically at the same time Enron built generation here because the market paid them to.
Traders work on arbitrage, volatility can create arbitrage, but it is also a function of market inefficiency. Therefore not sure if laying off gas traders means that the market is so efficient that there is no arbitrage, or something else, but given they existed and got laid off is an indicator of an efficient market. However, that is wholesale trading, not retail pricing.
I think the bigger problem is the barrier regulation places that discourages new retail entrants to create competition. I am not allowed to build a power station and put some lines to your house to sell you electricity at half the price you pay now. Nor can I say you are a good customer and I will give you a discount without offering the same discount to every consumer in the country, and having to supply them if they ask - including ones with high risk of defaulting. So in the utopia of everyone having an equal deal it might be that no one gets a good one, and the incentives to get into the business to create competition are removed.
But as above - even saying this, it is not a monopoly and consumers can switch. I jut did and will save several hundred pounds this year.0 -
Exactly.I'm sorry, which private monoploy is this we're talking about? Last time I looked there were quite a few power companies to choose from.
The main cause of excessive energy bills is that people don't shop around: consumers choosing monopoly through default.
Rick, you don't seem to understand what a monopoly even means because as has been mentioned there are a good number of energy providers competing for our business. I also switched a couple of years ago and saved a couple of hundred a year.
It is also bizarre that your solution to what you claim is a lack of competition is to replace the various energy suppliers with a single supplier which by definition has no competition at all.. Care to explain how that can solve the issue of not enough competition?
Then lets see what it would cost for the state to control the sector. I seem to recall estimating the market value of the retail energy supplier must be somewhere around £100 billion. If you assume that would allow the state energy company to sell energy at cost instead of the massive 5% profit margin made by British Gas, thats roughly a whopping £50 off the average yearly household energy bill. And you would have just increased the national interest bill by somewhere around £100 per year for every taxpayer in the country. Brilliant investment. But hey, its performing a useful service. :roll:
Food is pretty important as well so if we follow your logic, Tesco, Saisbury and Asda would need to be nationalised as well. Cant have these private businesses profiting from supplying essentials to people can we And how about clothes, they are very important. So the state needs to take control of M&S, Top Shop, Primark etc. I could go on but you see how daft this lefty logic is of 'Oh this is important and has social value so the state has to take control'. Rubbish. Just a half-arsed excuse for nationalisation and a misplaced dislike of the word 'profit'. "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
My visits to Gum before perestroika don't enthral me with the idea of shops run by the state for the people.
However the Soviet energy system, in terms of heating houses anyway, was effective, but that reflected it having no issues with a planning system designed to stop people building anything near anyone, as indeed did the nationalised industries here.
The problem here is that expansion of utilities worked in the nationalised days because no planning consents were needed, the state granted itself the rights. It is ironic that only this year has this has been addressed in any way, but only for shale gas, which is ideological. Note that the ideology does not go as far as allowing you to own the gas under your property, which is the key difference to the success of US Oil and gas, including shale, compared to ours. Prime and very relevant example of where state ownership increases prices to the consumer.0 -
Energy 6 are engaged in monopolistic behaviour since they're involved in collusion. That's my point.
Supermarkets do not appear to me engaged in monopolistic collusion activities given they seem locked in endless price wars. Healthy competition. If they were also engaged in collusion there'd be some serious kicking off and rightly so.
Anyway, where did I suggest nationalising anything stevo?
I'm just saying businesses cannot be relied upon to act in society's interest without appropriate regulation. For areas which are needs over wants (food, energy, water) it would be wise to be rigorous in regulation even at the expense of some profit. In instances where you will naturally get only a few players - the temptation to screw the broader society in the hunt for profits is high.
Good example would be child labour - would be cheaper for lots of factories to use child labour but guess what? That ruins their lives and is rightly regulated.0 -
I googled this alleged price fixing and have linked to the last report I could find:Energy 6 are engaged in monopolistic behaviour since they're involved in collusion. That's my point.
Supermarkets do not appear to me engaged in monopolistic collusion activities given they seem locked in endless price wars. Healthy competition. If they were also engaged in collusion there'd be some serious kicking off and rightly so.
Anyway, where did I suggest nationalising anything stevo?
I'm just saying businesses cannot be relied upon to act in society's interest without appropriate regulation. For areas which are needs over wants (food, energy, water) it would be wise to be rigorous in regulation even at the expense of some profit. In instances where you will naturally get only a few players - the temptation to screw the broader society in the hunt for profits is high.
Good example would be child labour - would be cheaper for lots of factories to use child labour but guess what? That ruins their lives and is rightly regulated.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-3128739/Energy-watchdog-Ofgem-clear-Big-Six-providers-market-abuse.html
Quote from the article:
"...the CMA, which has delved into the accounts of the firms, has not found evidence of collusion or deliberate profiteering, according to the Financial Times."
I've highlighted the minor discrepancy between your claim and the report
As for nationalisation, how else do you propose to get private companies to price so that their margins are way below a market return, or even a loss. If you try to do it by regulation, what this will do is cause supplier to withdraw from the market and/or reduce investment. Totally counterproductive and will not have the intended effect. The only realistic way to achieve what you want would be state ownership. Unless you have any commercially viable alternatives?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I don't buy the argument that well placed regulation stifles investment.
Certainly hasn't stopped IB's over the past 6 years. They have more regulation and are less profitable. Doesn't meant there is less investment. That's a much more complex issue.
Companies naturally have monopolistic tendencies - it's heavily incentivised (and so they should - that's part of the fight for higher productivity). Regulation should be put in place to harass that but still keep competition fair, - reduce the negative externalities and maintain the positive externalities.
All I'm saying, it's fairly basic, is that unfettered, unregulated markets are very costly, particularly in industries where there can only be a handful of players (or fewer). I'm not saying that it should be state run. Nor am I saying it shouldn't. There are many many shades of grey. I'm mainly just picking at your assumptions which are often misplaced.
There's a bizarre level of trust you have in companies vs gov't -not just in running things efficiently but just in general, and their role in society. Companies aren't particularly trustworthy. Track record is fairly mixed. So are gov'ts, but guess what, we have checks and balances for them to keep them on the straight & narrow - i.e. regulation.
Your assumption that free markets are ALWAYS more efficient isn't quite the case either, as a comparison of the US healthcare system vs the UK healthcare system testifies to. UK has better coverage and spends substantially less as a portion of GDP. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS . By that measure, UK health system is much more efficient. I'd argue that's down to very poor regulation. Drs being incentivised to over prescribe and over diagnose etc.
So guess what? It boils down about how it's managed, and a nice, level headed, apolitical rational approach is always best; rather than drawing political lines in the sand and letting that dictate how you run a health system.0 -
Energy companies are regulated.I don't buy the argument that well placed regulation stifles investment.
Certainly hasn't stopped IB's over the past 6 years. They have more regulation and are less profitable. Doesn't meant there is less investment. That's a much more complex issue.
Companies naturally have monopolistic tendencies - it's heavily incentivised (and so they should - that's part of the fight for higher productivity). Regulation should be put in place to harass that but still keep competition fair, - reduce the negative externalities and maintain the positive externalities.
All I'm saying, it's fairly basic, is that unfettered, unregulated markets are very costly, particularly in industries where there can only be a handful of players (or fewer). I'm not saying that it should be state run. Nor am I saying it shouldn't. There are many many shades of grey. I'm mainly just picking at your assumptions which are often misplaced.
There's a bizarre level of trust you have in companies vs gov't -not just in running things efficiently but just in general, and their role in society. Companies aren't particularly trustworthy. Track record is fairly mixed. So are gov'ts, but guess what, we have checks and balances for them to keep them on the straight & narrow - i.e. regulation.
Your assumption that free markets are ALWAYS more efficient isn't quite the case either, as a comparison of the US healthcare system vs the UK healthcare system testifies to. UK has better coverage and spends substantially less as a portion of GDP. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS . By that measure, UK health system is much more efficient. I'd argue that's down to very poor regulation. Drs being incentivised to over prescribe and over diagnose etc.
So guess what? It boils down about how it's managed, and a nice, level headed, apolitical rational approach is always best; rather than drawing political lines in the sand and letting that dictate how you run a health system.
Investment banks are certainly regulated but they are not regulated in terms of what price they can charge amount of profit they can make. Which is what you are proposing above. This is a different form of regulation - and will have the effects that I mention above. Simple business common sense - if you cannot make a profit in a particular activity/country and there is no reasonable prospect of doing so, why do it?
Regulation has its part but when you start dictating abnormally low pricing and therefore profit levels, supplier will leave the market and you cannot regulate to force companies to stay in the market. And as you will know from working in The City, when supply goes down but demand stays the same, prices go up. Simple economics. Hence your strategy is fundamentally flawed.
This leaves you with nationalisation as the only alternative."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Considering BG made approx 500m in the first 6 months last year, i doubt they ll be pulling out of UK domestic energy supply due to not being able to cut a profit!
the business they are in is a licence to print money, one puts prices up, they all put prices up, yet strangely prices dont come down when wholesale go down.
the regulation they face, is about billing and price structures, admin really.
at the moment, we the tax payer subsidise the poor and the elderly, whilst BG (plus the other energy firms) pretty much do as they like and make a excellent return too, bit like WTC....... bit of a pattern here.0 -
As I mentioned above, BG retail margins are 5% and those of Centrica slightly over 6%. Pretty average margins. The absolute size of the profit is large because their turnover is huge - over £25 billion IIRC. So based on the facts it is not case of a 'license to print money' or 'doing what they want', is it. I can get that sort of margin just by investing in corporate pref shares, practically risk free.Considering BG made approx 500m in the first 6 months last year, i doubt they ll be pulling out of UK domestic energy supply due to not being able to cut a profit!
the business they are in is a licence to print money, one puts prices up, they all put prices up, yet strangely prices dont come down when wholesale go down.
the regulation they face, is about billing and price structures, admin really.
at the moment, we the tax payer subsidise the poor and the elderly, whilst BG (plus the other energy firms) pretty much do as they like and make a excellent return too, bit like WTC....... bit of a pattern here.
As mentioned before I switched to Ovo because the deal was better. Seems to be a decent choice and savings to be had if you do your homework and shop around."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
i do like how you defend the indefensible.
BG made 500m in 6 months, so a large amount of money, of course they ve a huge turn over, there are 65m of us, all needing energy.
as to switching, is it still the case you cant if your on pre payment or poor credit rating and you pay even more ? the elderly and poor would nt know how to switch even if they could, these are the people who need the £200 not me and you.
So its left to the tax payer to give these people money,...again, as i said, very similar to WTC scandal.0 -
Exactly, a strike is about exerting leverage through collective action not winning a popularity contest - the miners lost the strike in the 80s partly because the govt had built up huge coal reserves and reduced its reliance on coal for energy - the govt could afford to wait it out.
If the doctors all went on strike people would die but the govt would cave in pretty quickly because politically it'd be a disaster. The reason teachers strikes never achieve much is because some of them walk out for a day or so - if they all walked out indefinitely the govt would soon offer them something to get them back.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
I have given you a good financial reason why it is defensible and you're not listening. Try to understand the difference between absolute levels of profit and profit margins.mamba80 wrote:i do like how you defend the indefensible.
BG made 500m in 6 months, so a large amount of money, of course they ve a huge turn over, there are 65m of us, all needing energy.
as to switching, is it still the case you cant if your on pre payment or poor credit rating and you pay even more ? the elderly and poor would nt know how to switch even if they could, these are the people who need the £200 not me and you.
So its left to the tax payer to give these people money,...again, as i said, very similar to WTC scandal.
There are always some who may not be able to make the savings, as there people who cant earn what you or I do. But let's face, life isnt fair as some people on this forum are fond of saying."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
I have given you a good financial reason why it is defensible and you're not listening. Try to understand the difference between absolute levels of profit and profit margins.mamba80 wrote:i do like how you defend the indefensible.
BG made 500m in 6 months, so a large amount of money, of course they ve a huge turn over, there are 65m of us, all needing energy.
as to switching, is it still the case you cant if your on pre payment or poor credit rating and you pay even more ? the elderly and poor would nt know how to switch even if they could, these are the people who need the £200 not me and you.
So its left to the tax payer to give these people money,...again, as i said, very similar to WTC scandal.
There are always some who may not be able to make the savings, as there people who cant earn what you or I do. But let's face, life isnt fair as some people on this forum are fond of saying.
Who said the nasty party was dead and buried?
regulation would make the energy companies protect the poor and elderly/sick etc so pre payment protects them from bad debt but the price should be same as anyone else pays.
Profit is about the bottom line, so a £1b profit on a 5% margin is better than a £1m profit on a 30% margin, now even you ve understand that new concept ?
and it seems to apply come director bonus time :roll: 0 -
Life is what makes things unfair, not any political party. It is just that some of us have the common sense to realise that that unfairness is a fundamental fact of life and that every real or perceived difference (in your language, inequality) does not have to be eliminated to avoid the world spinning off its axis.mamba80 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
I have given you a good financial reason why it is defensible and you're not listening. Try to understand the difference between absolute levels of profit and profit margins.mamba80 wrote:i do like how you defend the indefensible.
BG made 500m in 6 months, so a large amount of money, of course they ve a huge turn over, there are 65m of us, all needing energy.
as to switching, is it still the case you cant if your on pre payment or poor credit rating and you pay even more ? the elderly and poor would nt know how to switch even if they could, these are the people who need the £200 not me and you.
So its left to the tax payer to give these people money,...again, as i said, very similar to WTC scandal.
There are always some who may not be able to make the savings, as there people who cant earn what you or I do. But let's face, life isnt fair as some people on this forum are fond of saying.
Who said the nasty party was dead and buried?
regulation would make the energy companies protect the poor and elderly/sick etc so pre payment protects them from bad debt but the price should be same as anyone else pays.
Profit is about the bottom line, so a £1b profit on a 5% margin is better than a £1m profit on a 30% margin, now even you ve understand that new concept ? and it seems to apply come director bonus time :roll:
There are so many inequalities in life aside from money. Some people are better looking than others. Some have better personalities than others. We don't seek to even these out. Learn to live with the fact that some people will do better than others financially and you will be much happier and less bitter in life. A lesson many lefties need to learn."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You ve posted some shitte before but that nonsense is taking the p1ss and isnt worthy of a reply.0
-
You just did.mamba80 wrote:You ve posted some shitte before but that nonsense is taking the p1ss and isnt worthy of a reply.
If you don't like what I'm saying or can't understand that life is unfair, that's just tough. Sounds like you won't learn "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
