Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It increases the profits of large corporations who pay more tax and also increase the salaries and bonuses of their workers. This increases the value of the FTSE100 which is good for the UK economy and our pensions rise in value. The wealthy become richer and trickle down their money to the rest of the economy. Alternatively, is this all crap? If it is all crap, then how come these arguments are so often sold as positive outcomes?" Of course it's all crap. "How come these arguments are so often sold as positive arguments?" Because some people stand to make enormous amounts of money from it. Our bills are through the roof, not because energy companies are struggling, but because they're fleecing us. This is part of a neo-liberal agenda which means that for 50 years the proportion of wages relative to GDP is at a historic low, whilst the proportion of corporate profits to GDP is at a historic high. The two are intrinsically linked. It's not an aberration, it's decades of a drive to shift wealth from the bottom to the top of society. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It increases the profits of large corporations who pay more tax and also increase the salaries and bonuses of their workers. This increases the value of the FTSE100 which is good for the UK economy and our pensions rise in value. The wealthy become richer and trickle down their money to the rest of the economy. Alternatively, is this all crap? If it is all crap, then how come these arguments are so often sold as positive outcomes? Of course it's all crap. "How come these arguments are so often sold as positive arguments?" Because some people stand to make enormous amounts of money from it. Our bills are through the roof, not because energy companies are struggling, but because they're fleecing us. This is part of a neo-liberal agenda which means that for 50 years the proportion of wages relative to GDP is at a historic low, whilst the proportion of corporate profits to GDP is at a historic high. The two are intrinsically linked. It's not an aberration, it's decades of a drive to shift wealth from the bottom to the top of society. " Neoliberal agenda, run by who? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Perhaps someone with a good understanding can tell me what is the time lag between wholesale energy price changes and consumer prices. The gas/electricity we are consuming now was bought when? Similarly prices have just fallen through the floor to their lowest for a couple of years. So when will consumers see their bills reduced to reflect that?" Great question! Will we get a great answer? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It increases the profits of large corporations who pay more tax and also increase the salaries and bonuses of their workers. This increases the value of the FTSE100 which is good for the UK economy and our pensions rise in value. The wealthy become richer and trickle down their money to the rest of the economy. Alternatively, is this all crap? If it is all crap, then how come these arguments are so often sold as positive outcomes? Of course it's all crap. "How come these arguments are so often sold as positive arguments?" Because some people stand to make enormous amounts of money from it. Our bills are through the roof, not because energy companies are struggling, but because they're fleecing us. This is part of a neo-liberal agenda which means that for 50 years the proportion of wages relative to GDP is at a historic low, whilst the proportion of corporate profits to GDP is at a historic high. The two are intrinsically linked. It's not an aberration, it's decades of a drive to shift wealth from the bottom to the top of society. Neoliberal agenda, run by who? " Neo liberals in both main parties, who facilitate the concentration of wealth, unfair tax regime and the restrictions on employee rights. Why do you think there was such vehement attack on Corbyn from both the media and the political establishment….he was challenging the neo liberal consensus. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Perhaps someone with a good understanding can tell me what is the time lag between wholesale energy price changes and consumer prices. The gas/electricity we are consuming now was bought when? Similarly prices have just fallen through the floor to their lowest for a couple of years. So when will consumers see their bills reduced to reflect that?" Different topic, no? Are high energy prices a good thing due to the all of the "positive" consequences? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Perhaps someone with a good understanding can tell me what is the time lag between wholesale energy price changes and consumer prices. The gas/electricity we are consuming now was bought when? Similarly prices have just fallen through the floor to their lowest for a couple of years. So when will consumers see their bills reduced to reflect that? Different topic, no? Are high energy prices a good thing due to the all of the "positive" consequences?" Of course it's not positive. It's a ridiculous question. Ask the child whose parents can't feed them and heat their home at the same time. Ask the millions being pushed further into poverty. Ask those even in work who are having to queue at food banks to feed themselves or their kids. Ask the kids who turn up to school hungry every day because their families can't put a square meal on the table. So are high prices good???? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Perhaps someone with a good understanding can tell me what is the time lag between wholesale energy price changes and consumer prices. The gas/electricity we are consuming now was bought when? Similarly prices have just fallen through the floor to their lowest for a couple of years. So when will consumers see their bills reduced to reflect that? Different topic, no? Are high energy prices a good thing due to the all of the "positive" consequences?" Easy you are trying for a “gotcha” moment I think. High prices = Great for Govt via VAT receipts and Corporation Tax. Great for shareholders (including private pensions). Great for Senior Execs via bonuses. Possibly good for employees. But... Bad for consumers, especially those on low incomes due to higher gas/electric bills and food prices due to knock on effect to supply chains etc. Bad for businesses, especially those with high energy consumption. My question isn’t off topic. I really want to understand the lag so I know when this nightmare should end (and if timings of decreases are commensurate with the speed of increases. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It increases the profits of large corporations who pay more tax and also increase the salaries and bonuses of their workers. This increases the value of the FTSE100 which is good for the UK economy and our pensions rise in value. The wealthy become richer and trickle down their money to the rest of the economy. Alternatively, is this all crap? If it is all crap, then how come these arguments are so often sold as positive outcomes?" Who argues that higher energy prices increase the profits of large corporations, and also increase the salaries and bonuses of their workers? No one, that's who. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It increases the profits of large corporations who pay more tax and also increase the salaries and bonuses of their workers. This increases the value of the FTSE100 which is good for the UK economy and our pensions rise in value. The wealthy become richer and trickle down their money to the rest of the economy. Alternatively, is this all crap? If it is all crap, then how come these arguments are so often sold as positive outcomes? Who argues that higher energy prices increase the profits of large corporations, and also increase the salaries and bonuses of their workers? No one, that's who." History shows most of the profits go to the exutives not the workers. You only need to check how much CEO renumeration has risen in multiples of the average worker in the company. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It increases the profits of large corporations who pay more tax and also increase the salaries and bonuses of their workers. This increases the value of the FTSE100 which is good for the UK economy and our pensions rise in value. The wealthy become richer and trickle down their money to the rest of the economy. Alternatively, is this all crap? If it is all crap, then how come these arguments are so often sold as positive outcomes?" In the age of net zero that’s what carbon taxes plus green levies are supposed to do as the energy hierarchy(Google it if you wish) is 1.Leaner 2. Keener 3.Greener 4. Cleaner 5. Meaner. It’s causes pain but that’s the reasoning. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Perhaps someone with a good understanding can tell me what is the time lag between wholesale energy price changes and consumer prices. The gas/electricity we are consuming now was bought when? Similarly prices have just fallen through the floor to their lowest for a couple of years. So when will consumers see their bills reduced to reflect that? Different topic, no? Are high energy prices a good thing due to the all of the "positive" consequences? Easy you are trying for a “gotcha” moment I think. High prices = Great for Govt via VAT receipts and Corporation Tax. Great for shareholders (including private pensions). Great for Senior Execs via bonuses. Possibly good for employees. But... Bad for consumers, especially those on low incomes due to higher gas/electric bills and food prices due to knock on effect to supply chains etc. Bad for businesses, especially those with high energy consumption. My question isn’t off topic. I really want to understand the lag so I know when this nightmare should end (and if timings of decreases are commensurate with the speed of increases." Not a "gotcha" just interested why the logic is used by some people as a positive and if it can be explained in this context. Of course you can ask what you like, but the OP is intended about the why the logic I laid out is usually sold as a positive by one political group, not about what drives the energy price mechanism. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It increases the profits of large corporations who pay more tax and also increase the salaries and bonuses of their workers. This increases the value of the FTSE100 which is good for the UK economy and our pensions rise in value. The wealthy become richer and trickle down their money to the rest of the economy. Alternatively, is this all crap? If it is all crap, then how come these arguments are so often sold as positive outcomes? Who argues that higher energy prices increase the profits of large corporations, and also increase the salaries and bonuses of their workers? No one, that's who." Have higher energy prices not increased energy company profits? Have these profits not increased share prices and management remuneration? Shouldn't higher "performance" not lead to higher wages and bonuses for all? Is that not the logic of unfettered capitalism? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It increases the profits of large corporations who pay more tax and also increase the salaries and bonuses of their workers. This increases the value of the FTSE100 which is good for the UK economy and our pensions rise in value. The wealthy become richer and trickle down their money to the rest of the economy. Alternatively, is this all crap? If it is all crap, then how come these arguments are so often sold as positive outcomes? In the age of net zero that’s what carbon taxes plus green levies are supposed to do as the energy hierarchy(Google it if you wish) is 1.Leaner 2. Keener 3.Greener 4. Cleaner 5. Meaner. It’s causes pain but that’s the reasoning." How have net zero renewable generation increased energy prices? Do renewables now cost more or less per unit of power produced than that generated by gas? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It increases the profits of large corporations who pay more tax and also increase the salaries and bonuses of their workers. This increases the value of the FTSE100 which is good for the UK economy and our pensions rise in value. The wealthy become richer and trickle down their money to the rest of the economy. Alternatively, is this all crap? If it is all crap, then how come these arguments are so often sold as positive outcomes? In the age of net zero that’s what carbon taxes plus green levies are supposed to do as the energy hierarchy(Google it if you wish) is 1.Leaner 2. Keener 3.Greener 4. Cleaner 5. Meaner. It’s causes pain but that’s the reasoning. How have net zero renewable generation increased energy prices? Do renewables now cost more or less per unit of power produced than that generated by gas?" The price mainly gets set by gas which pays carbon tax. Renewables either get a CFD where they get a set price or get a subsidy on top of market price. Renewables should be cheaper but they are not under the current systems. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It increases the profits of large corporations who pay more tax and also increase the salaries and bonuses of their workers. This increases the value of the FTSE100 which is good for the UK economy and our pensions rise in value. The wealthy become richer and trickle down their money to the rest of the economy. Alternatively, is this all crap? If it is all crap, then how come these arguments are so often sold as positive outcomes? In the age of net zero that’s what carbon taxes plus green levies are supposed to do as the energy hierarchy(Google it if you wish) is 1.Leaner 2. Keener 3.Greener 4. Cleaner 5. Meaner. It’s causes pain but that’s the reasoning. How have net zero renewable generation increased energy prices? Do renewables now cost more or less per unit of power produced than that generated by gas? The price mainly gets set by gas which pays carbon tax. Renewables either get a CFD where they get a set price or get a subsidy on top of market price. Renewables should be cheaper but they are not under the current systems." Perhaps I missed the point you were making. It sounded like you were saying that renewables were "causing pain". Does the "logic" that I laid out make the rise in energy prices a good thing though? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It increases the profits of large corporations who pay more tax and also increase the salaries and bonuses of their workers. This increases the value of the FTSE100 which is good for the UK economy and our pensions rise in value. The wealthy become richer and trickle down their money to the rest of the economy. Alternatively, is this all crap? If it is all crap, then how come these arguments are so often sold as positive outcomes?" "Who argues that higher energy prices increase the profits of large corporations, and also increase the salaries and bonuses of their workers? No one, that's who." "Have higher energy prices not increased energy company profits?" Some, though not many, energy companies are seeing improved profits. But in the OP you just said "large corporations", as if you meant all of them. "Have these profits not increased share prices and management remuneration?" Management remuneration might be linked to share price. But in the OP you said "salaries and bonuses of their workers", which is a very different thing. "Shouldn't higher "performance" not lead to higher wages and bonuses for all?" Assuming that your double negative wasn't intended - That's what we'd all like to see in a fair society, but it's not guaranteed, and no one is arguing that it will happen in those few energy companies that are making profits. "Is that not the logic of unfettered capitalism?" No it isn't. There's nothing in unfettered capitalism that says you should pay the workforce more just because you're making more profit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It increases the profits of large corporations who pay more tax and also increase the salaries and bonuses of their workers. This increases the value of the FTSE100 which is good for the UK economy and our pensions rise in value. The wealthy become richer and trickle down their money to the rest of the economy. Alternatively, is this all crap? If it is all crap, then how come these arguments are so often sold as positive outcomes? Who argues that higher energy prices increase the profits of large corporations, and also increase the salaries and bonuses of their workers? No one, that's who. Have higher energy prices not increased energy company profits? Some, though not many, energy companies are seeing improved profits. But in the OP you just said "large corporations", as if you meant all of them. Have these profits not increased share prices and management remuneration? Management remuneration might be linked to share price. But in the OP you said "salaries and bonuses of their workers", which is a very different thing. Shouldn't higher "performance" not lead to higher wages and bonuses for all? Assuming that your double negative wasn't intended - That's what we'd all like to see in a fair society, but it's not guaranteed, and no one is arguing that it will happen in those few energy companies that are making profits. Is that not the logic of unfettered capitalism? No it isn't. There's nothing in unfettered capitalism that says you should pay the workforce more just because you're making more profit." I was making the link to the general arguments made by those who support unrestricted markets and claim that it is best for everyone. You are quite correct that unrestricted capitalism does not deliver this. So, you are agreeing that the logic is crap. The arguments do not work. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Arguably you missed the most important benefit : we use less energy when it's expensive, helping to preserve our planet. That's a massive win right?" Long-term, reducing fossil fuel energy use will be a substantial benefit to society. Ultimately it is accelerating the shift to much cheaper and less volatile renewable energy production. However, that was not the thesis that I was testing. So you think that the other outcomes of rising energy company profits are positive? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Arguably you missed the most important benefit : we use less energy when it's expensive, helping to preserve our planet. That's a massive win right? Long-term, reducing fossil fuel energy use will be a substantial benefit to society. Ultimately it is accelerating the shift to much cheaper and less volatile renewable energy production. However, that was not the thesis that I was testing. So you think that the other outcomes of rising energy company profits are positive?" Any volatility in markets is undesirable, and creates short-term problems. I don't accept the general tone of 'business is bad, profits are evil' mantra. Profits are necessary to incentivize shareholders to take risks with their capital and invest in companies that enrich our lives, provide employment, pay taxes etc. Capitalism isn't perfect but it's the best we've come up with so far - by a country mile. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It increases the profits of large corporations who pay more tax and also increase the salaries and bonuses of their workers. This increases the value of the FTSE100 which is good for the UK economy and our pensions rise in value. The wealthy become richer and trickle down their money to the rest of the economy. Alternatively, is this all crap? If it is all crap, then how come these arguments are so often sold as positive outcomes? Who argues that higher energy prices increase the profits of large corporations, and also increase the salaries and bonuses of their workers? No one, that's who." I think this is 1 of those situations where you have to judge by their behaviour, not the words. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Arguably you missed the most important benefit : we use less energy when it's expensive, helping to preserve our planet. That's a massive win right? Long-term, reducing fossil fuel energy use will be a substantial benefit to society. Ultimately it is accelerating the shift to much cheaper and less volatile renewable energy production. However, that was not the thesis that I was testing. So you think that the other outcomes of rising energy company profits are positive?" The energy companies are making billions off renewables as gas power stations who mainly set price have an fuel output price of around 8p to 12p which is cash in the bank for a wind farm with a fuel cost of zero. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It increases the profits of large corporations who pay more tax and also increase the salaries and bonuses of their workers. This increases the value of the FTSE100 which is good for the UK economy and our pensions rise in value. The wealthy become richer and trickle down their money to the rest of the economy. Alternatively, is this all crap? If it is all crap, then how come these arguments are so often sold as positive outcomes? Who argues that higher energy prices increase the profits of large corporations, and also increase the salaries and bonuses of their workers? No one, that's who. Have higher energy prices not increased energy company profits? Some, though not many, energy companies are seeing improved profits. But in the OP you just said "large corporations", as if you meant all of them. Have these profits not increased share prices and management remuneration? Management remuneration might be linked to share price. But in the OP you said "salaries and bonuses of their workers", which is a very different thing. Shouldn't higher "performance" not lead to higher wages and bonuses for all? Assuming that your double negative wasn't intended - That's what we'd all like to see in a fair society, but it's not guaranteed, and no one is arguing that it will happen in those few energy companies that are making profits. Is that not the logic of unfettered capitalism? No it isn't. There's nothing in unfettered capitalism that says you should pay the workforce more just because you're making more profit. I was making the link to the general arguments made by those who support unrestricted markets and claim that it is best for everyone. You are quite correct that unrestricted capitalism does not deliver this. So, you are agreeing that the logic is crap. The arguments do not work." I'm not agreeing that at all. I'm saying that your original post suggested that people are making these arguments. They aren't. Your entire first post is based on a false premise. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Arguably you missed the most important benefit : we use less energy when it's expensive, helping to preserve our planet. That's a massive win right? Long-term, reducing fossil fuel energy use will be a substantial benefit to society. Ultimately it is accelerating the shift to much cheaper and less volatile renewable energy production. However, that was not the thesis that I was testing. So you think that the other outcomes of rising energy company profits are positive? Any volatility in markets is undesirable, and creates short-term problems. I don't accept the general tone of 'business is bad, profits are evil' mantra. Profits are necessary to incentivize shareholders to take risks with their capital and invest in companies that enrich our lives, provide employment, pay taxes etc. Capitalism isn't perfect but it's the best we've come up with so far - by a country mile." I did not state not do I believe that business is bad or profits are evil. It is also not what I wrote. There is an equally loudly mantra that profit is the only goal and if that is achieved all is well. Is the logic that I laid out given for why huge profits benefit everyone correct, or not? The system worked remarkably well for many years after WWII when profits were shared between workers and owners. Then something broke. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It increases the profits of large corporations who pay more tax and also increase the salaries and bonuses of their workers. This increases the value of the FTSE100 which is good for the UK economy and our pensions rise in value. The wealthy become richer and trickle down their money to the rest of the economy. Alternatively, is this all crap? If it is all crap, then how come these arguments are so often sold as positive outcomes? Who argues that higher energy prices increase the profits of large corporations, and also increase the salaries and bonuses of their workers? No one, that's who. Have higher energy prices not increased energy company profits? Some, though not many, energy companies are seeing improved profits. But in the OP you just said "large corporations", as if you meant all of them. Have these profits not increased share prices and management remuneration? Management remuneration might be linked to share price. But in the OP you said "salaries and bonuses of their workers", which is a very different thing. Shouldn't higher "performance" not lead to higher wages and bonuses for all? Assuming that your double negative wasn't intended - That's what we'd all like to see in a fair society, but it's not guaranteed, and no one is arguing that it will happen in those few energy companies that are making profits. Is that not the logic of unfettered capitalism? No it isn't. There's nothing in unfettered capitalism that says you should pay the workforce more just because you're making more profit. I was making the link to the general arguments made by those who support unrestricted markets and claim that it is best for everyone. You are quite correct that unrestricted capitalism does not deliver this. So, you are agreeing that the logic is crap. The arguments do not work. I'm not agreeing that at all. I'm saying that your original post suggested that people are making these arguments. They aren't. Your entire first post is based on a false premise." You do understand that the title is ironic, don't you? However, the companies that are earning from them all experience an increase in profits which it is argued is a benefit to society somehow. If you do not believe this look up "how is maximising profits good for society" or "trickle down economics" and do some reading... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Arguably you missed the most important benefit : we use less energy when it's expensive, helping to preserve our planet. That's a massive win right?" You put it better than me but can I also add as a child we did not have central heating. Just a gas fire in the lounge. So if you can't afford it don't use it for to long we have been using to much if cost drives down consumption that should benifit the planet. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Arguably you missed the most important benefit : we use less energy when it's expensive, helping to preserve our planet. That's a massive win right? Long-term, reducing fossil fuel energy use will be a substantial benefit to society. Ultimately it is accelerating the shift to much cheaper and less volatile renewable energy production. However, that was not the thesis that I was testing. So you think that the other outcomes of rising energy company profits are positive? Any volatility in markets is undesirable, and creates short-term problems. I don't accept the general tone of 'business is bad, profits are evil' mantra. Profits are necessary to incentivize shareholders to take risks with their capital and invest in companies that enrich our lives, provide employment, pay taxes etc. Capitalism isn't perfect but it's the best we've come up with so far - by a country mile. I did not state not do I believe that business is bad or profits are evil. It is also not what I wrote. There is an equally loudly mantra that profit is the only goal and if that is achieved all is well. Is the logic that I laid out given for why huge profits benefit everyone correct, or not? The system worked remarkably well for many years after WWII when profits were shared between workers and owners. Then something broke. " Who claims profit is the 'only goal'? True, energy companies have enjoyed an unexpected and unplanned windfall profit from market volatility. But they are subject to windfall taxes. It is an aberration that likely won't happen again. What's your gripe exactly? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You do understand that the title is ironic, don't you? However, the companies that are earning from them all experience an increase in profits which it is argued is a benefit to society somehow." It isn't. Nobody is arguing that the few companies profiting from high energy prices are somehow benefiting wider society. It's a standard tenet in economics that when all companies make profits, that benefits society. But that isn't the scenario you're presenting. What you have done in the first post is to set up a nonsensical and untrue argument, just so that you can get others to agree with you that it makes no sense. If you want to discuss the benefits or otherwise of trickle-down economics, do it honestly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It increases the profits of large corporations who pay more tax and also increase the salaries and bonuses of their workers. This increases the value of the FTSE100 which is good for the UK economy and our pensions rise in value. The wealthy become richer and trickle down their money to the rest of the economy. Alternatively, is this all crap? If it is all crap, then how come these arguments are so often sold as positive outcomes?" So with prices on food and clothing going up should supermarkets pay a wind fall TAX.if the profits are a % and every thing goes up in price there profits will go up. As will the VAT return to HMRC. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Arguably you missed the most important benefit : we use less energy when it's expensive, helping to preserve our planet. That's a massive win right? Long-term, reducing fossil fuel energy use will be a substantial benefit to society. Ultimately it is accelerating the shift to much cheaper and less volatile renewable energy production. However, that was not the thesis that I was testing. So you think that the other outcomes of rising energy company profits are positive? Any volatility in markets is undesirable, and creates short-term problems. I don't accept the general tone of 'business is bad, profits are evil' mantra. Profits are necessary to incentivize shareholders to take risks with their capital and invest in companies that enrich our lives, provide employment, pay taxes etc. Capitalism isn't perfect but it's the best we've come up with so far - by a country mile. I did not state not do I believe that business is bad or profits are evil. It is also not what I wrote. There is an equally loudly mantra that profit is the only goal and if that is achieved all is well. Is the logic that I laid out given for why huge profits benefit everyone correct, or not? The system worked remarkably well for many years after WWII when profits were shared between workers and owners. Then something broke. Who claims profit is the 'only goal'? True, energy companies have enjoyed an unexpected and unplanned windfall profit from market volatility. But they are subject to windfall taxes. It is an aberration that likely won't happen again. What's your gripe exactly? " You seem to have missed the point of the thread. I was using the example to illustrate the logic that huge profits for companies are good for the average member of the population. Is that not true? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You do understand that the title is ironic, don't you? However, the companies that are earning from them all experience an increase in profits which it is argued is a benefit to society somehow. It isn't. Nobody is arguing that the few companies profiting from high energy prices are somehow benefiting wider society. It's a standard tenet in economics that when all companies make profits, that benefits society. But that isn't the scenario you're presenting. What you have done in the first post is to set up a nonsensical and untrue argument, just so that you can get others to agree with you that it makes no sense. If you want to discuss the benefits or otherwise of trickle-down economics, do it honestly." What you have done is tell me incorrectly why you believed that I posted. So society only benefits when all companies are making a profit? Is there ever a time when this happens? None going bankrupt or just scrap#ing by? Do you wish to modify your "standard tenet"? Has workers pay kept pace with that of managers or profits? Does trickle down economics work? Defend the logic or don't defend the logic, but please don't start trying to make up some scenario about how you believe my mind works when I write an OP. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It increases the profits of large corporations who pay more tax and also increase the salaries and bonuses of their workers. This increases the value of the FTSE100 which is good for the UK economy and our pensions rise in value. The wealthy become richer and trickle down their money to the rest of the economy. Alternatively, is this all crap? If it is all crap, then how come these arguments are so often sold as positive outcomes? So with prices on food and clothing going up should supermarkets pay a wind fall TAX.if the profits are a % and every thing goes up in price there profits will go up. As will the VAT return to HMRC." I'm not saying anything about windfall taxes. Does the logic that I have laid out work or not? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What you have done in the first post is to set up a nonsensical and untrue argument, just so that you can get others to agree with you that it makes no sense. If you want to discuss the benefits or otherwise of trickle-down economics, do it honestly." "What you have done is tell me incorrectly why you believed that I posted." Well either you posted it just to start a conversation, or you posted it because you actually believe all that rubbish. Which is it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What you have done in the first post is to set up a nonsensical and untrue argument, just so that you can get others to agree with you that it makes no sense. If you want to discuss the benefits or otherwise of trickle-down economics, do it honestly. What you have done is tell me incorrectly why you believed that I posted. Well either you posted it just to start a conversation, or you posted it because you actually believe all that rubbish. Which is it?" Just to start a conversation. As I have pointed out on several conversations in the thread. You don't need to demand an answer. I've told you already. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Arguably you missed the most important benefit : we use less energy when it's expensive, helping to preserve our planet. That's a massive win right? Long-term, reducing fossil fuel energy use will be a substantial benefit to society. Ultimately it is accelerating the shift to much cheaper and less volatile renewable energy production. However, that was not the thesis that I was testing. So you think that the other outcomes of rising energy company profits are positive? Any volatility in markets is undesirable, and creates short-term problems. I don't accept the general tone of 'business is bad, profits are evil' mantra. Profits are necessary to incentivize shareholders to take risks with their capital and invest in companies that enrich our lives, provide employment, pay taxes etc. Capitalism isn't perfect but it's the best we've come up with so far - by a country mile. I did not state not do I believe that business is bad or profits are evil. It is also not what I wrote. There is an equally loudly mantra that profit is the only goal and if that is achieved all is well. Is the logic that I laid out given for why huge profits benefit everyone correct, or not? The system worked remarkably well for many years after WWII when profits were shared between workers and owners. Then something broke. Who claims profit is the 'only goal'? True, energy companies have enjoyed an unexpected and unplanned windfall profit from market volatility. But they are subject to windfall taxes. It is an aberration that likely won't happen again. What's your gripe exactly? You seem to have missed the point of the thread. I was using the example to illustrate the logic that huge profits for companies are good for the average member of the population. Is that not true?" Guess I'm not average as have shares in BP and centrica. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It increases the profits of large corporations who pay more tax and also increase the salaries and bonuses of their workers. This increases the value of the FTSE100 which is good for the UK economy and our pensions rise in value. The wealthy become richer and trickle down their money to the rest of the economy. Alternatively, is this all crap? If it is all crap, then how come these arguments are so often sold as positive outcomes? So with prices on food and clothing going up should supermarkets pay a wind fall TAX.if the profits are a % and every thing goes up in price there profits will go up. As will the VAT return to HMRC. I'm not saying anything about windfall taxes. Does the logic that I have laid out work or not?" Yes, I get your point, but I don't think it's as simple as 'good' or 'bad'. Undoubtedly some there is considerable short term pain for consumers from high energy prices. But for example if windfall profits, dividends and taxes are invested wisely, we all get long term benefits. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It increases the profits of large corporations who pay more tax and also increase the salaries and bonuses of their workers. This increases the value of the FTSE100 which is good for the UK economy and our pensions rise in value. The wealthy become richer and trickle down their money to the rest of the economy. Alternatively, is this all crap? If it is all crap, then how come these arguments are so often sold as positive outcomes? So with prices on food and clothing going up should supermarkets pay a wind fall TAX.if the profits are a % and every thing goes up in price there profits will go up. As will the VAT return to HMRC. I'm not saying anything about windfall taxes. Does the logic that I have laid out work or not? Yes, I get your point, but I don't think it's as simple as 'good' or 'bad'. Undoubtedly some there is considerable short term pain for consumers from high energy prices. But for example if windfall profits, dividends and taxes are invested wisely, we all get long term benefits." That's fair, but I guess it's more likely to fill a debt hole. The difference between could, should and what will actually happen... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So do you disagree that if we use less it's not good for the planet EASY Uk" Sorry. Not following because of the multiple negatives. It is good for the planet if we use less fossil fuel energy. If that was the question, I answered earlier. Also, not quite the point of the thread. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sorry. Not following because of the multiple negatives." Says the man who loves his double negatives. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sorry. Not following because of the multiple negatives. Says the man who loves his double negatives." Well done you for taking the time to add such a pointless, pedantic, "contribution" to the topic. Just couldn't help yourself, could you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sorry. Not following because of the multiple negatives." "Says the man who loves his double negatives." "Well done you for taking the time to add such a pointless, pedantic, "contribution" to the topic. Just couldn't help yourself, could you?" Since the topic of this thread is so poorly defined, I thought I'd come in with a humorous observation on hypocrisy. I won't presume to fathom what contribution you thought you were making with your reply. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sorry. Not following because of the multiple negatives. Says the man who loves his double negatives. Well done you for taking the time to add such a pointless, pedantic, "contribution" to the topic. Just couldn't help yourself, could you? Since the topic of this thread is so poorly defined, I thought I'd come in with a humorous observation on hypocrisy. I won't presume to fathom what contribution you thought you were making with your reply." Ha ha! Handbags swinging  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sorry. Not following because of the multiple negatives. Says the man who loves his double negatives. Well done you for taking the time to add such a pointless, pedantic, "contribution" to the topic. Just couldn't help yourself, could you? Since the topic of this thread is so poorly defined, I thought I'd come in with a humorous observation on hypocrisy. I won't presume to fathom what contribution you thought you were making with your reply." Bless  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Perhaps someone with a good understanding can tell me what is the time lag between wholesale energy price changes and consumer prices. The gas/electricity we are consuming now was bought when? Similarly prices have just fallen through the floor to their lowest for a couple of years. So when will consumers see their bills reduced to reflect that? Great question! Will we get a great answer?" They are set many months in advance, expectation is the unit costs will drop 20 - 25% on 1st July | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
