Would you stay in a socialist country or emmigrate?

gadgetmind

We move money, projects and people around the world all the time, and we have offices in the US, Eastern Europe, India, China, Japan, and many others.

If politicians want to signal to international companies that the UK is a very risky place to make long-term investment, then they just need to say so, loudly and clearly.

Oh, they just did!

antrobus

michaels wrote: »

Couldn't you say exactly the same about the market for food with 4 big supermarkets, mobile phones with 3 big networks etc etc, presumably they also should be subject to a 20 month price freeze whilst 'something is done'?

Yes you could.

You can address your complaint to Edward Miliband. His contact details are shown here http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/edward-miliband/1510

Kennyboy66

michaels wrote: »

I agree but in a way once you decide that one 'essential' that also turns to to be an internationally traded commodity should be subject to price controls then can you not apply the same logic to many other things, like food for example which forms a much higher proportion of people's essential expenditure than fuel. Having started down such a path, how long till you end up with no toilet paper in the shops?

It's a daft idea, but really not substantially different than the Utilities windfall tax from 1997 (or even, whisper it gently, the windfall tax that Thatcher levied on retail banks back in 1981).

The worst part of it that it distracts from the real point that you could argue that the market isn't working efficiently in several sectors of the economy, particularly energy & banking.

A truly radical party would be looking for forcibly break up the oligarchies in those sectors. A bit like the UK have done in the past in Telecoms (preventing BT entering mobile market initially) and the US did in the Oil sector and Telecoms.

Kennyboy66

michaels wrote: »

Couldn't you say exactly the same about the market for food with 4 big supermarkets, mobile phones with 3 big networks etc etc, presumably they also should be subject to a 20 month price freeze whilst 'something is done'?

Supermarkets.

Not really no on a macro scale, we have new entrants (Aldi & Netto) growing like topsy & Waitrose growing at the other end of the market. The dominant players profits (Tesco) in the UK are basically flat in the UK.

Mobile Phones

The exclusion of BT at the start fostered a hugely dynamic sector. The fact that many retails can choose any carriers infrastructure means that its ridiculously competitive & where charges are excessive (roaming) the EU steps in.


Meanwhile energy companies profits have doubled in a fairly short period, while consumption has fallen 24% in 6 years, while our infrastructure is creaking and seriously under invested.

They've identified a real problem just come up with the wrong solution.

grizzly1911

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

A truly radical party would be looking for forcibly break up the oligarchies in those sectors. A bit like the UK have done in the past in Telecoms (preventing BT entering mobile market initially) and the US did in the Oil sector and Telecoms.

BT and Openreach worked particularly well too.

gadgetmind

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

They've identified a real problem just come up with the wrong solution.

Ready, fire, aim.

Loughton_Monkey

michaels wrote: »

(Off topic, rising fuel costs send a market signal that switching away from carbon fuel sources is a good thing because they are becoming more scarce and they also have an environmental disbenefit, trying to override this price signal will have the perverse affect that people will use more and make less effort to look for alternatives such as better insulation or wearing another sweater)

All very well, but generally speaking, we don't have that option. It is made for us. As the E.On guy said, the government has over-ridden the 'free market' and imposed extra 'green taxes' on the energy companies who must use 'green' energy at 8 times the cost!

Rather perversely, this is hardly sending any message to use 'alternatives', but rather forcing the much higher priced alternatives upon us. You are right about encouraging us to use insulation, or sweaters.

A more informed government would probably consider just a small extra energy company tax, which would be pumped into government-sponsored research to 'perfect' the alternative sources to such a degree that their scaled-up costs fall rapidly, to meet the ever-rising carbon fuel costs.

michaels

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

Meanwhile energy companies profits have doubled in a fairly short period, while consumption has fallen 24% in 6 years, while our infrastructure is creaking and seriously under invested.

They've identified a real problem just come up with the wrong solution.

Profit rates are extremely volatile, prices do not change every time wholesale prices change. Are profits too high now or were they too low before? Are they much higher than in other countries even though prices are cheaper? How about compared to the amount of capital employed? There are only 3 mobile network providers in the UK, I wonder what their return on capital is? The BBC had a chart showing the margin between wholesale and retail prices has increased in the last 6 years but perhaps profits were very low six years ago and of course a large part of the extra wedge goes to giving rich homeowners a tax free return of 10% on their solar panels and other environmental levies.

I believe the market has been investigated several times and no evidence of collusuion in pricing has been found, entering the market is not impossible, I have just switched from daligas to pioneer energy, if profits are excessive why are there not many more new entrants looking for their slice?

I am not claiming the market is perfect, there is definitely a big advantage for those who can be bothered to check and switch regularly but that is the same for every other product. However plase could someone produce the evidence that the market is dysfunctional and excessive returns are being made.

zagubov

I seem to recall that back in the 70s and 8o's South Africa which was seen as a right-wing country ( for multiple reasosn) actually ahd a bigger public sector than the UK.

The UK has done well with sort-of-public sector industries like the BBC and the Post Office. I'm not at all clear what the explosiion of extra channels are bringing us that we didn't get from our terrestrial channels, say, backed up with an archive library.

CLAPTON

zagubov wrote: »

I seem to recall that back in the 70s and 8o's South Africa which was seen as a right-wing country ( for multiple reasosn) actually ahd a bigger public sector than the UK.

The UK has done well with sort-of-public sector industries like the BBC and the Post Office. I'm not at all clear what the explosiion of extra channels are bringing us that we didn't get from our terrestrial channels, say, backed up with an archive library.

the BBC is an organ of the establishment and is corrupt and blotted;
almost beggars believe that any decent person is willing to work there (except of course for the blotted salaries and pensions)


the PO has been an appallingly inefficient organisation with no relevance to the 21st century