Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 402

Try our Fantastic 5-Issue Bundle Offer! For just £18, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:
The Play-offs Issue - pictured (out 12 Sept) – Covering the climax of the Super League & Championship seasons
The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final excitement from both sides of the world plus Four Nations preview
The Four Nations Issue (out 21 Nov) – Fantastic coverage of the Four Nations tournament down under
The Golden Boot Issue (out 19 Dec) – A look back at the 2014 season plus the big reveal of the winner of the Golden Boot
The 2015 Season Preview Issue (out 23 Jan) – How will your team perform in 2015? We preview every club.


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

An example of a fair and open market


  • Please log in to reply
100 replies to this topic

#61 archibald

archibald
  • Coach
  • 646 posts

Posted 18 October 2013 - 09:06 PM

Which is what I said so at least we agree they are operating a cartel.

If one company lowers it's prices then the rest follow, that's not a cartel, that's trying to maintain market share. Look at the supermarkets when one drops it's petrol prices.



#62 Bostik Bailey

Bostik Bailey
  • Coach
  • 1,680 posts

Posted 18 October 2013 - 09:12 PM

If one company lowers it's prices then the rest follow, that's not a cartel, that's trying to maintain market share. Look at the supermarkets when one drops it's petrol prices.


Exactly, so please explain why BG didn't announce a price cut to 2011 levels to get custom of SSE.

Yes price cuts show that a cartel is not operating but we are talking about concurrent price rises

#63 archibald

archibald
  • Coach
  • 646 posts

Posted 18 October 2013 - 09:15 PM

Exactly, so please explain why BG didn't announce a price cut to 2011 levels to get custom of SSE.

Yes price cuts show that a cartel is not operating but we are talking about concurrent price rises

Because if they're all making all this cash, the SSE would simply drop it's prices, so why switch.



#64 Bostik Bailey

Bostik Bailey
  • Coach
  • 1,680 posts

Posted 19 October 2013 - 08:09 AM

Because if they're all making all this cash, the SSE would simply drop it's prices, so why switch.


Look at the comment YOU made two posts previously to answer that question

It is not a competitive market, it is market where all the major player keep the price artificially high.

#65 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 7,910 posts

Posted 19 October 2013 - 09:35 AM

If that was the case then BG ( or any of the others) could as I said drop their price to the 2011 level and still make a healthy profit and gain the major share of the market. Look at the graph. Why don't they do it?
.


So you'd prefer a monopoly to a cartel then ? Interesting.

As for reducing prices to 2011 levels, sounds great in principle. How have their operating costs changed in that period - have their employees had pay rises ? How much has their business rates and insurance gone up by ? What about fuel for their vehicle fleet, has it changed ? Maintenance costs ? Increases in employers NI contribution rate ? Cost of bought in services provided by contractors etc ?

If those have stayed the same then you may have a point, if not then you're talking idealistic nonsense I'm afraid.

Workington Town. Then. Now. Always.


#66 Bostik Bailey

Bostik Bailey
  • Coach
  • 1,680 posts

Posted 19 October 2013 - 09:38 AM

It must be great working for these power companies then you get 8-9% pay rises year on year.

#67 archibald

archibald
  • Coach
  • 646 posts

Posted 19 October 2013 - 09:47 AM

Look at the comment YOU made two posts previously to answer that question

It is not a competitive market, it is market where all the major player keep the price artificially high.

What????



#68 Griff9of13

Griff9of13
  • Coach
  • 5,645 posts

Posted 19 October 2013 - 10:30 AM

Did Stalin give people the chance to vote him out of office or did he slaughter any perceived opponents?

 

Exactly; that's what she was pointing out. The absurdity of whenever anything slightly socialist is proposed such as re-nationalisation opponents from the right immediately chorus that we are heading towards a Stalinist state. Ridiculous. 


"it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

#69 Bostik Bailey

Bostik Bailey
  • Coach
  • 1,680 posts

Posted 19 October 2013 - 11:02 AM

What????


What What?

#70 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 7,910 posts

Posted 19 October 2013 - 11:10 AM

It must be great working for these power companies then you get 8-9% pay rises year on year.


That's a straw man argument and you know it.

It's a very simple question - leaving aside the cost of the actual energy, do you think their other costs are the same as in 2011 ? If not then why would they go back to charging 2011 prices ? It's a very simplistic notion that assumes the price of the energy is their only cost and it's nonsense. Even if energy wholesale prices had remained completely static then you would still see a rise in prices as a consumer to accommodate inflation on other costs.

Workington Town. Then. Now. Always.


#71 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,843 posts

Posted 21 October 2013 - 11:01 AM

nPower have taken the 8.2% price rise of SSE and 9.2% price rise of British Gas and trumped it with their own 10.4% price rise.  I wonder where the rest will finish up at the bidding block race for silliest price rise?

 

There's a very useful diagram at the bottom of this page that shows how much each of the major suppliers have increased their prices by over the last few years.  Again, going back to that wholesale price of gas thing in the government's paper I linked a few pages ago, these price rises seem to be a wee bit disproportionate...


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#72 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,883 posts

Posted 21 October 2013 - 01:02 PM

Basically all these companies buy the same gas and electricity from the same source and at the same quality.

 

On that basis I can't understand why we need 6 suppliers. If anything the varying prices are an attempt to make it look different when it is apparently not.

 

The only option to create competition is to have local supply and demand and come off the grid altogether.



#73 Methven Hornet

Methven Hornet
  • Coach
  • 9,496 posts

Posted 21 October 2013 - 07:25 PM

Thanks  for that. I promise I won't tax your Iphone eyesight again today.
 
However, if  Q2 2013 average price per KWh: 2.161p

then hasn't the comparison to be Q2 2012 average price per KWh: 2.067p  in which case its 4.5 % ...still less than 9%, though, agreed...or wait for the full years figures for 2013
 
still less than 9 % though as you said, so I was wrong.

I seem to remember a spokesman for SSE saying that only about half the rise was down to wholesale price rises. The rest was to do with green levies and other regulatory issues.
"There are now more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs."

#74 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,057 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 09:50 AM

The thing, it actually quite hard to discern the truth from the special pleading from all sides..(apart from the poor bluddy consumer). I certainly don't want to pay any more than I do at present, and life would be so much better if energy were half the price, then I could afford to make the 320 mile round trip to Wigan for every home game.  Hardly helpful on the emission front, the depletion of fossil fuels and the contribution to global warming through the release of trapped energy.

 

My long view is still that energy prices will continue to increase  and even if shale gas were to contribute significantly to our energy supplies and even if we were to build  a decent number of nuclear power stations, the true cost of construction, operation, environmental safeguards and decommissioning need to be added in. 

 

Of course there are solutions such as PV panels, domestic wind turbines, solar hot water systems, ground heat pumps,  circulating air heat recovery systems etc that can more or less eliminate domestic energy charges but they are expensive, and not generally suitable for  retrofitting.  A mate  has had his own house built using this technology and has virtually zero energy bills....but at a huge capital cost!  He is now building 3 more similarly equipped, so if you are well-heeled you can afford low energy bills.

 

So how about the utilities adopting a banded charge system whereby the the more you use, the higher the unit charge to discourage profligate useage? 



#75 Griff9of13

Griff9of13
  • Coach
  • 5,645 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 10:24 AM

The thing, it actually quite hard to discern the truth from the special pleading from all sides..(apart from the poor bluddy consumer). I certainly don't want to pay any more than I do at present, and life would be so much better if energy were half the price, then I could afford to make the 320 mile round trip to Wigan for every home game.  Hardly helpful on the emission front, the depletion of fossil fuels and the contribution to global warming through the release of trapped energy.

 

My long view is still that energy prices will continue to increase  and even if shale gas were to contribute significantly to our energy supplies and even if we were to build  a decent number of nuclear power stations, the true cost of construction, operation, environmental safeguards and decommissioning need to be added in. 

 

Of course there are solutions such as PV panels, domestic wind turbines, solar hot water systems, ground heat pumps,  circulating air heat recovery systems etc that can more or less eliminate domestic energy charges but they are expensive, and not generally suitable for  retrofitting.  A mate  has had his own house built using this technology and has virtually zero energy bills....but at a huge capital cost!  He is now building 3 more similarly equipped, so if you are well-heeled you can afford low energy bills.

 

So how about the utilities adopting a banded charge system whereby the the more you use, the higher the unit charge to discourage profligate useage? 

 

Good idea. What's in it for them? Do they really want to reduce consumption, it a bit counter intuitive for any commercial business to try and discourage spending on it's goods. It may also go against the new OFGEN regulations on simplifying tariffs.


"it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

#76 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,843 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 10:53 AM

Good idea. What's in it for them? Do they really want to reduce consumption, it a bit counter intuitive for any commercial business to try and discourage spending on it's goods. It may also go against the new OFGEN regulations on simplifying tariffs.

It's quite basic market economics really.  They're trying to find the sweet spot of matching how high they can make their bills before people start turning off luxury items.  A good number of people will go into serious fuel poverty and start turning off heating before some people will even think about turning off their tumble dryers in mid-summer.  The ideal, but thoroughly amoral, point for energy companies is look for that sweet spot of maximum revenue against lowest supply.

 

Think next time you see a politician, e.g. that nice Mr Davey, telling you in a very patronising tone to just put on a jumper if you can't afford to heat your house, just think of yourself as one of those in the category of "non profitable" for the energy companies.  They don't care if you freeze as long as more affluent households keep their computers running at the same time as their TVs and other energy draining profitable stuff.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#77 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,057 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 10:57 AM

Quite so. but since so many in politics , the media and on here want to interfere with the energy companies, why not do so in a way that that benefits the less fortunate. 

 

People complain when energy prices go up 10% in a year but rejoice when house prices treble in ten years. Both of these disadvantage the poorest and weakest in our society...or don't we care  about that, or global warming any more?


  • ckn likes this

#78 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,057 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 10:59 AM

It's quite basic market economics really.  They're trying to find the sweet spot of matching how high they can make their bills before people start turning off luxury items.  A good number of people will go into serious fuel poverty and start turning off heating before some people will even think about turning off their tumble dryers in mid-summer.  The ideal, but thoroughly amoral, point for energy companies is look for that sweet spot of maximum revenue against lowest supply.

 

Think next time you see a politician, e.g. that nice Mr Davey, telling you in a very patronising tone to just put on a jumper if you can't afford to heat your house, just think of yourself as one of those in the category of "non profitable" for the energy companies.  They don't care if you freeze as long as more affluent households keep their computers running at the same time as their TVs and other energy draining profitable stuff.

 

 

he didn't say "wear a jumper " though.



#79 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,843 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 11:10 AM

Quite so. but since so many in politics , the media and on here want to interfere with the energy companies, why not do so in a way that that benefits the less fortunate. 

 

People complain when energy prices go up 10% in a year but rejoice when house prices treble in ten years. Both of these disadvantage the poorest and weakest in our society...or don't we care  about that, or global warming any more?

I agree with you entirely.  For example, the help to buy scheme is just idiocy adding fuel to restoke a housing market that was adjusting itself slowly.

 

The thing that's influenced us the most in our energy use was that little electricity usage reader that Scottish Power sent us.  It's very telling when you stick on the tumble dryer and you see the price per hour shoot up.  I find myself looking at it occasionally these days, wondering why it's above the 4p/hr idling rate and what I can turn off to get it back to that.  I've found that with nothing bar a few lights on, the fridge and maybe the bedroom telly that it idles quite nicely at 4p/hr, I got it down to 2p/hr once in an experiment with no power on bar the fridge, my computer infrastructure (routers, etc) and my server in my office.  My brain treats it as a game but I'd really like to see how much it's reduced our bills when our 6 monthly one comes in soon in comparison to last year.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#80 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,057 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 11:28 AM

we have one of those. It is quite revealing. Its not about being miserable and cold but about cutting out waste..and it does work.

 

My other gripe is with pre-payment meters and the fact that the unit prices with these  is higher than for high-use direct debit payers. 


  • ckn likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users