Energy comes at a very high price - get over it.

grizzly1911

Government proposing 24 hour switching now.

That may have a positive effect for consumers if all penalty fees for switching are removed.

With all this tariff simplification, 24 hour switching I wonder how long it is before all operators are simply pricing within a narrow band with just one or two tariffs.


Bit like when we could only get supply from BGas or the regional electricty suplier.

Generators need to be seperated completely from retailers next if we want more open markets.

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Corporation tax, if not aggresively avoided, is only payable on profit. The need to pay increasing dividends, to satisfy markets and investors, is another example. Dividends that may be better spent investing for sustainability and or more competive pricing.

Profit can arise when goods and services are sold for more than they cost. Thye may also arise from windfall gains - no doubt Mount Pleasnt sorting office may fall into that category in due course.

In the case of truly discretionary spending then that is up to consumer choice. It is also consumer choice when their is real choice of supply or differentiated products that will achieve the same ends.

I understand your hatred of profit making companies and longing for state only 'not for private profit' companies that are honest open transparent as one would expect all state institutions to be.

Most such experiments have not encouraged me to agree with you.

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

I understand your hatred of profit making companies and longing for state only 'not for private profit' companies that are honest open transparent as one would expect all state institutions to be.

Most such experiments have not encouraged me to agree with you.

Perhaps CLAPTRAP would be amore suitable name. Incorrect assumptions continue.

If you beleive the current dogs breakfast is more effiicent and in the best interest of the consumer so be it.

No doubt PPI was agreat idea too. Dividend growth at any cost.

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Perhaps CLAPTRAP would be amore suitable name. Incorrect assumptions continue.

If you beleive the current dogs breakfast is more effiicent and in the best interest of the consumer so be it.

No doubt PPI was agreat idea too. Dividend growth at any cost.

I understand what you are saying; (semi) free market is a bit messy like democracy ; much better a well structured clearly more efficient organisation like most government led ones would be good for all.

andrewf75

I don't think energy is really much more expensive than it should be, the problem is that most people spend so much on luxuries and we should be cutting back on them as well as minimising energy use.

Would also add that I think energy should really be controlled by the state not the free market.

wymondham

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Government proposing 24 hour switching now.

That may have a positive effect for consumers if all penalty fees for switching are removed.

Maybe I'm being a bit cynical, but with very little to switch to, I can't see how 24 hour switching will help? I can see mass confusion as companies up their prices after a few days of each other with masses changing in the end for no gain as in the end the company you end up with will charge about the same as the one you left - nothing gained??


The Government concentrating on switching is a failed attempt at seeing the real problem (or maybe deliberate?)

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

I understand what you are saying; (semi) free market is a bit messy like democracy ; much better a well structured clearly more efficient organisation like most government led ones would be good for all.

Who knows you don't appear to other than state "control" in any instance must be all bad.

Much better to let vested interests shape economic policy - for well their own inetersts.

No doubt the big six are totally organised for meeting their own objectives.

Does democracy truly exist with government emasculation?

TruckerT

wymondham wrote: »

Maybe I'm being a bit cynical, but with very little to switch to, I can't see how 24 hour switching will help? I can see mass confusion as companies up their prices after a few days of each other with masses changing in the end for no gain as in the end the company you end up with will charge about the same as the one you left - nothing gained??


The Government concentrating on switching is a failed attempt at seeing the real problem (or maybe deliberate?)

The biggest paradox in the debate about energy prices is that, since it seems to be generally accepted that we need to reduce our use of fossil fuels and that there is currently no overall alternative, then higher prices are probably a good thing. We use taxation to try to reduce tobacco use, and it seems not unreasonable that the much-discussed green taxes should play a part in discouraging the wasteful use of fossil energy. But VAT on fuel bills is set at a quarter of the general rate of 20%.

Another paradox is the very idea that, given a single national distribution network, there can be any meaningful 'market'. Supermarkets offer widely different product ranges, in widely different locations. There can be many different reasons why a shopper would prefer one supermarket to another. And we can switch on a daily basis if we feel so inclined.

Energy flows perpetually into our homes with only a very occasional glitch. Each retailer's product, and each retailer's 'service' is identical to every other. It makes no difference at all as to who we have to pay for this enormous privilege. That's why most of us don't bother to shop around.

If we were to be able to switch energy supplier on a daily basis, as is now being suggested, then the energy companies would have no basis on which to compete. Without even getting out of bed, we would all be able to log on in the morning, and switch to whoever was offering the lowest price that day. Suppliers would match their prices to the lowest, and competition would be wiped out altogether. We would end up with no choice at all.

TruckerT

CLAPTON

In a perfect market, for an undifferentiated product like gas/electricity, then the price will be the same for every supplier

The price will be slowly be driven down, as each supplier seeks to make efficiencies to increase their profits as they can't increase the price.

With only limited number of suppliers however, there is the ever present danger of them acting in concert and becoming a cartel.

TruckerT

CLAPTON wrote: »

In a perfect market, for an undifferentiated product like gas/electricity, then the price will be the same for every supplier

The price will be slowly be driven down, as each supplier seeks to make efficiencies to increase their profits as they can't increase the price.

With only limited number of suppliers however, there is the ever present danger of them acting in concert and becoming a cartel.

Mmmmm - I can see the logic in what you say, but there can be very few products which are as perfectly undifferentiated as gas/electricity and yet are also in universally constant demand by 100% of the potential customer base.

The perfect market sounds a bit like the perfect storm, where every possible variable has aligned itself towards the same result. The outcome then becomes entirely predictable. That was the idea of communism - capitalism is supposed to offer choices.

TruckerT