156 replies to this topic

[John Rhino]

There is no such thing as a "false market", a market is where goods or services are offered for sale - that describes the situation perfectly. It was a market.

Companies often sell things at or below cost, they are called "loss leaders". If every market that had loss leaders was a "false market" then no market would exist.

It's a false market when the consumer has no choice.

Classic example in the paper today regarding the argument (sorry, discussion ) we were having about privatised power companies.

I quote "EDF is locked in discussions with HMG over long term guaranteed prices for the Hinkley Point power station. This would see EDF receiving a "top up" if the market price fell below that level"

Now we've flogged off our power supply to the French and Germans thay demand guaranteed profits before they will supply us. The tax payer loses, the power companies cannot lose.

Privatisation has ensured "prices", either real or a tax payer subsidy always go up.

[Northern Sol]

It's a false market when the consumer has no choice.

The only time that there is no choice is when there is a monopoly.

Privatisation has ensured "prices", either real or a tax payer subsidy always go up.

They go up anyway as per oil prices (never a nationalised industry).

[Northern Sol]

At the moment. And made that way through privatisation and a reliance on gas.

Made that way through the cost of labour in Western countries compared to the 3rd world. There is a lot of coal produced around the world just not in 1st world countries. And as I said this is not something UK-specific.

[John Rhino]

The only time that there is no choice is when there is a monopoly.



They go up anyway as per oil prices (never a nationalised industry).

I suspect you are deliberately ignoring my main point about Hinkley point power station
The taxpayer says for the output AND pays dividends to the French government.
Should be nationlised!

[Northern Sol]

I already answered that point either last page or the page before.

[Northern Sol]

But of course DVD's didn't come about for another 15/20 years and Blu-Ray even longer so there wasn't a choice (even the ill fated laser-disc wasn't out for another 10 years... now there was a product that fits with your arguement)

Yes, but you seemed to implying that the loss of choice was something permanent. It wasn't, VHS beat Betamax but it has, itself, become obsolete. People preferred DVDs to VHS and don't care enough about Blu-Ray.

You're aware that Betamax was a format not a company aren't you? The format was supported by many company's with products in every price bracket that VHS was in. The cassettes were smaller, containing the same running time of tape with better picture quality. It wasn't the product that was wrong, it was merely that it was pushed by a specific (and not particularly nice) industry. The consumer chose based on content fair enough, but where was the competition in this fight? It could only have been a fair (free market) fight had the porn industry released material on both, and that plays in to my implication in the original post that industry cartels are reducing consumer choice and not allowing true free market economics.

Now Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD was a more open consumer led selection. It could have gone very differently had Microsoft shipped the a HD-DVD drive in the original xbox 360.

Free choice applies to everybody including producers of smut. The competition was fair, doubtless the porn barons had their reasons for choosing VHS.

[John Rhino]

I already answered that point either last page or the page before.

Obviously not to my satisfaction. :-)

[John Rhino]

Yet another wonderful example of privatisation.
The autumn grange care home in Nottingham closed with 24hours notice dumping 30 dementia patients on to the street.

Peter Walsh from a medical charity said "this is totally unacceptable . . . Leaving the state and the taxpayer to pick up the tab".

'twas ever thus.

Edited by John Rhino, 09 November 2012 - 04:34 PM.

[WearyRhino]

Yet another wonderful example of privatisation.
The autumn grange care home in Nottingham closed with 24hours notice dumping 30 dementia patients on to the street.

Peter Walsh from a medical charity said "this is totally unacceptable . . . Leaving the state and the taxpayer to pick up the tab".

'twas ever thus.

Welcome to Thatcher's legacy Britain.

[Shadow]

Welcome to Thatcher's legacy Britain.

really?
over 20 years since she left office and you still try to blame her?

[fieldofclothofgold]

What was the name of the NHS dept that hit all the targets?I think it was something like logistics.Any way because it was very profitable they sold it off

[WearyRhino]

really?
over 20 years since she left office and you still try to blame her?

Absolutely. It will be generations before the nation recovers.

[Marauder]

Absolutely. It will be generations before the nation recovers.

Will never recover in ex-mining areas

[Severus]

really?
over 20 years since she left office and you still try to blame her?

Decisions made in government hace long reaching repercussions. It's something I wish politicians from all sides of the house would realise instead of thinking short term.

[John Rhino]

really?
over 20 years since she left office and you still try to blame her?

Yes. Many of the things she did are simply not reversable.
Mines can never be opened, hospitals and health care once flogged off can never be put right. Who would dare or could afford to re nationalise the railways when all unbiased observers agree they should be.
And who ruined the English pub for all time with the stupid beer orders?

Edited by John Rhino, 11 November 2012 - 04:14 PM.

[West Country Eagle]

really?
over 20 years since she left office and you still try to blame her?

Everyone needs a scapegoat. You have to admit the Wicked Witch of the West was always a terrific scapegoat. Oh, and 20-odd years of rampant free market economics, not checked by subsequent governments but initially pushed forward on her watch, has a lot to answer for.

Edited by West Country Eagle, 12 November 2012 - 11:10 AM.

[Martyn Sadler]

Will never recover in ex-mining areas

It depends on which mining areas you are talking about.

The former mining strongholds in the Wakefield district are not doing too badly, mainly because the local authority has been very energetic in pushing forward a largely successful regeneration strategy, taking advantage of grant aid from various sources.

I was talking to Wakefield Council's deputy leader Denise Jeffery and she pointed out that the unemployment rate in the former mining areas south of the city, such as South Elmsall, South Kirkby and Hemsworth, is now lower than when mining was the dominant industry. The figures shown in the link below suggest that unemployment in those areas now is no worse than in most places not affected by mining closures. And of course the environment is now far more attractive than it was in those days. That isn't to under-state the problems that former miners faced, but I do know a lot of miners who are now doing well for themselves in quite different fields.

I don't know whether other districts have coped as well as Wakefield, and I'm sure there are some wide variations, but I don't think you can say that they'll inevitably never recover.

http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/61953D48-E563-41C5-8E46-FF09BC898B46/0/UnemploymentBulletin_Sep2012.pdf

[Northern Sol]

I was talking to Wakefield Council's deputy leader Denise Jeffery and she pointed out that the unemployment rate in the former mining areas south of the city, such as South Elmsall, South Kirkby and Hemsworth, is now lower than when mining was the dominant industry.

Tbf I think people moving away from the area looking for work might have something to do with that.

[Martyn Sadler]

Tbf I think people moving away from the area looking for work might have something to do with that.

Not if you see the new housing that has been built recently in those communities.

If you check the census data I don't think there's been any loss of population.

[Northern Sol]

Not if you see the new housing that has been built recently in those communities.

If you check the census data I don't think there's been any loss of population.

Population has increased everywhere, if the population has stayed the same then there will have been net migration from the area.