Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,786|5534|eXtreme to the maX
So you won't actually say it but your plan seems to be to nationalise the 'national energy infrastructure' whatever that means and subsidise the cost of purchasing the fuel for a short period.

So how do you plan to fund this? Where are you going to take the money from?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
uziq
Member
+476|2880
yes, genius, i am in support of nationalizing utiitiies (and the transport network, too, whilst we're at it).

sorry that i'm not going to try and talk around a petroleum profiiteer into the merits of state ownership.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,786|5534|eXtreme to the maX
So how are you going to buy out private companies and subsidise their operation?

Where is the money coming from?

I'm pretty sure Britain doesn't have the tax revenue to just wipe out everyone's energy bill.

Maybe you have some other plan to magic away global fuel prices.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2022-08-07 02:45:43)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,786|5534|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:

quick, go and do another google images search for a graph!!!!
Why doesn't Britain just put a 90% subsidy on petrol?

https://www.evanshalshaw.com/-/media/evanshalshaw/blog/top-10-cheapest-petrol-countries/2022-update/10-cheapest-petrol-countries-1280x720px.ashx
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
uziq
Member
+476|2880

Dilbert_X wrote:

So how are you going to buy out private companies and subsidise their operation?

Where is the money coming from?

I'm pretty sure Britain doesn't have the tax revenue to just wipe out everyone's energy bill.

Maybe you have some other plan to magic away global fuel prices.
the rise in energy bills ultimately has little relation to the cost of fuel. it’s about profit. the wholesale price of the fuel is actually not related to the end-consumer’s bill. the spike in wholesale prices due to the war in ukraine has been a pretext for companies to hike their rates - and report record profits.

make u think.

https://amp.theguardian.com/business/20 … -mps-ofgem

I'm pretty sure Britain doesn't have the tax revenue to just wipe out everyone's energy bill.
LOL yes because that’s what nationalising utilities means. giving everyone free electricity. are you really this fucking dumb, or what?

Last edited by uziq (2022-08-07 03:21:16)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,786|5534|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:

the rise in energy bills has little relation to the cost of fuel. it’s about profit. the wholesale price of the fuel is actually not related to the end-consumer’s bill.

make u think.

https://amp.theguardian.com/business/20 … -mps-ofgem
The article doesn't say that

The most vulnerable and low-income households would pay a “social tariff”, with discounted bills funded either by wealthier bill-payers, or through taxation.
There we go. How much extra tax do you want to pay to go towards someone else's fuel bills?



Germany’s largest landlord to restrict heating at night
Vonovia, one of Germany's largest landlords, wants to save energy by lowering the heat in tenants' buildings overnight.

When the heating season starts in autumn, tenants will only be able to turn up their radiators to 17C between 11pm and 6am at night, the company announced on Thursday.
https://www.thelocal.com/20220707/germa … -at-night/

What a bunch of wusses, I've never had heating in my bedroom.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
uziq
Member
+476|2880
you live at home and your parents help pay for your bills. shut up, manchild.
Larssen
Member
+94|1315
The trajectory of wealth distribution in the UK, US and to a similar (albeit a little more controlled) extent in the rest of the EU is so in line with Piketty's observations of about 10 years ago it's not even funny.

I also don't think it's just about corporate profiteers vs everyone else. The energy sector now posting record profits is simply the result of risk assessments and controls at work in a capitalist marketplace where demand and supply has become much more volatile/uncertain. It's a systemic error. And while in other European countries state ownership/subsidy can exert control on bottom line consumer pricing, they're also still subject to the same systemic forces. Just that the state is paying these rates to the producers opposed to consumers, acting like a buffer.

It's going to take a number of decades more but we can all see we're in for a wild ride. I'm uncertain whether the long term result will be a global system change or the establishment of a new aristocracy. I'm leaning towards the latter outcome tbh. There's no real overarching governance to control means of production in a completely globalised economy.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,786|5534|eXtreme to the maX
Er no, historically I've paid their bills.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
uziq
Member
+476|2880

Dilbert_X wrote:

Er no, historically I've paid their bills.
it’s amazing. you’re bragging about your stock portfolio but it’s never ever occurred to you to get your own place. even if you’re caring for them and dabbing up porridge from your mother’s chin, you couldn’t find your own independence even a 5-10 minute car ride away?

you’re a little man baby.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,786|5534|eXtreme to the maX

Larssen wrote:

I'm uncertain whether the long term result will be a global system change or the establishment of a new aristocracy. I'm leaning towards the latter outcome tbh. There's no real overarching governance to control means of production in a completely globalised economy.
Russia delivered its oil aristocracy some time ago.
You'd think that communist control of the means of production would make this impossible but no.

What its going to mean is countries with oil are going to be very rich.

There's also massive potential for corruption - see Lord Blair of Kazakhstan, Gerhard Schroeder, whatever Johnson thought he was up to hobnobbing with Lebedev etc.
Thats probably the bigger threat to the life and wealth of the average person than having to adjust their thermostat and buy a coat.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,786|5534|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Er no, historically I've paid their bills.
it’s amazing. you’re bragging about your stock portfolio but it’s never ever occurred to you to get your own place. even if you’re caring for them and dabbing up porridge from your mother’s chin, you couldn’t find your own independence even a 5-10 minute car ride away?

you’re a little man baby.
So anyway, how much extra tax are you volunteering to pay to subsidise someone else's gas bill?

Lets start the bidding at GBP2000
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
uziq
Member
+476|2880
i don’t have any problem with paying higher tax if it means people aren’t starving or freezing this winter.

it’s a total red herring to suggest that the only way for a society to safeguard its populace against energy crises is by massive tax hikes.

let’s talk about the systemic tax evasion and dodgy book-keeping by the society’s most wealthy before we make out that the only way to heat britain’s homes is to ‘pay £3000 more tax’.

let’s talk about windfall taxes on the corporations who are posting record profits as a result of the instability - and paying it into your bank account.

and it’s just incredibly rich that you, a person who has never achieved personal independence in his entire life, has so much to say when lecturing working people on their household finances. whilst collecting dividends from petrol companies. what a fucking laff.

Last edited by uziq (2022-08-07 03:53:10)

unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,998|6200|USA

Gas companies profiteering.
Ultra wealthy not paying their fair share.

dilbert to zeek: are you willing to subsidize someone else's gas bill?
uziq
Member
+476|2880
let’s not forget that last week dilbert was recommending that 1/2 the open and profit-making businesses in a society can stump up the charity change to keep the closed and shuttered 1/2 afloat as part of his genius ‘perpetual lockdowns forever’ covid policy.

turns out that socialism really does work for him - when it’s for the sake of business owners, not plebs.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,786|5534|eXtreme to the maX
Never said 1/2, more like 9/10 to 1/10 - if you have an effective covid policy 90% of the economy can keep going.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,786|5534|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:

i don’t have any problem with paying higher tax if it means people aren’t starving or freezing this winter.

it’s a total red herring to suggest that the only way for a society to safeguard its populace against energy crises is by massive tax hikes.

let’s talk about the systemic tax evasion and dodgy book-keeping by the society’s most wealthy before we make out that the only way to heat britain’s homes is to ‘pay £3000 more tax’.

let’s talk about windfall taxes on the corporations who are posting record profits as a result of the instability - and paying it into your bank account.
OK, so as expected you're planning for anyone who isn't you to pay for it all.

What if I told you - if companies make more profit they automatically pay more tax.
Amazing.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,786|5534|eXtreme to the maX
Seems like energy companies are taxed pretty hard in normal times, 30% when the normal rate is 19%, plus another 25% in extra tax for now.
https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/united-kin … ate-income

Probably this is needed to repay all the money spent in Britain's disastrous covid response - probably should let actual scientists run the show next time.

So where is the extra tax to give every homeowner ~GBP2000/yr coming from?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
uziq
Member
+476|2880

Dilbert_X wrote:

uziq wrote:

i don’t have any problem with paying higher tax if it means people aren’t starving or freezing this winter.

it’s a total red herring to suggest that the only way for a society to safeguard its populace against energy crises is by massive tax hikes.

let’s talk about the systemic tax evasion and dodgy book-keeping by the society’s most wealthy before we make out that the only way to heat britain’s homes is to ‘pay £3000 more tax’.

let’s talk about windfall taxes on the corporations who are posting record profits as a result of the instability - and paying it into your bank account.
OK, so as expected you're planning for anyone who isn't you to pay for it all.

What if I told you - if companies make more profit they automatically pay more tax.
Amazing.
yeah, because as we all know, letting companies make runaway profits always end up in them dutifully paying their full taxes.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/ener … 07196.html

the welfare of everyone is improved if we just let the corporations make their yuuuuge profits.

trickle down economics baby!

it hasn't actually delivered any just and equitable results since, erm, the 1980s – but let's just give it a try for a little while longer. any minute now we're about to see the immense pay-offs of letting corporations line their coffers and shareholders get their porsches.

i'm sure the people who can't heat their homes or afford fresh produce this winter will be warmed by the news that corporations have to pay tax, sometimes, too, on their all-time-high profits.

Britain's disastrous covid response - probably should let actual scientists run the show next time.
lol, you literally are at odds and disagree with the PhD'd experts on epidemiology at this present moment. you really do have a head like a sieve.

Last edited by uziq (2022-08-07 04:53:23)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,786|5534|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:

lol, you literally are at odds and disagree with the PhD'd experts on epidemiology at this present moment. you really do have a head like a sieve.
Look at the actual data though. See those colossal blips Australia didn't have? We did actually listen to the PhD'd experts on epidemiology'
We'd still have been doing fine if we hadn't given up.

https://i.imgur.com/fGxuRAo.jpg
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,786|5534|eXtreme to the maX
Anyhoo, I'd love to stay but its 9:30pm and I have to write my own appraisal for tomorrow - the perks of having a lazy manager.

I could use some adjectives - whatever they are.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,998|6200|USA

Willful cherry picking. Where's your geography chart?

How do numbers work again, dilbert?

Aren't statistics like really important for engineers? Why are you so selective all the time?

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2022-08-07 05:35:44)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,786|5534|eXtreme to the maX
Numbers don't lie, what is your boggle?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,998|6200|USA

But you can lie with numbers, I posted this awhile back.
uziq
Member
+476|2880
The Labour leadership and many of its allies in the commentariat have become prisoners of two dogmas. The first is ‘the longest suicide note in history’, which now has two elections to anchor it: 1983 and 2019. It holds that radical economic policy makes the party unelectable and Labour can only return from the wilderness by accepting the Tories’ narrative and offering competent managerial administration.

The second is ‘traditional working-class concerns’, which has sympathisers across the party. It holds that working-class voters outside big cities are innately hostile to immigration and social progress, and that only by ‘listening’ to prejudice (and backing a hard Brexit) can Labour be an authentically working-class party. Both positions require that party members – who are overwhelmingly left-wing and socially progressive – be prevented from driving policy.

Both these dogmas are counterproductive. The current economic crisis presents an opportunity to reassert some basic aspects of social democracy after decades of retreat. A £15 minimum wage has overwhelming public support, as do price controls on food and other necessities. Common ownership of energy commands five-to-one support among the UK population, with other polls suggesting that three-quarters back free energy allowances. Conservative supporters, never mind the rest of the electorate, support rail nationalisation by more than two to one. And yet Labour remains committed to a piecemeal offering, promising to shave money off energy bills by abolishing VAT on them. The leadership’s dogmatic refusal to offer a more radical alternative, and its commitment to the private ownership of basic services, claims to be about winning elections – but it is objectively unpopular.

As well as getting poorer and more unequal, Britain is becoming more isolated and authoritarian. Labour could oppose such policies as sending asylum seekers to Rwanda for ‘processing’, or the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, in clear moral terms. Instead it has stuck to a cautious script, emphasising that it, too, will be tough on borders and disruptive protesters. Keir Starmer used his 2021 conference speech to brand Labour as the ‘party of law and order’.

The stated rationale for this approach is a need to ‘reconnect’ with working-class voters lost in 2019. But working-class voters – in Barnsley and Workington as well as in Islington and Lambeth – are not homogeneous. Labour’s historic claim to be the party of workers is premised on a politics of solidarity and a practice of contesting ideas in workplaces and communities. The current approach of most politicians towards the ‘Red Wall’, on the other hand, is based on a crass identitarian definition of the working class as ageing white men with regional accents.

Relying on focus groups and soundbites communicated from on high excludes working-class people from the actual business of politics, which is left to the professionals. They are turned from complex political agents into passive consumers, as politicians race each other to the bottom on border-building and authoritarianism. To follow through on this strategy, the Labour leadership must shut down party democracy – conference has repeatedly voted for progressive immigration policies – and disregard the views both of its members and of affiliated unions. In doing so, it loses one of the only mechanisms available to it for actually connecting with working-class people.

Starmer promised to continue Jeremy Corbyn’s domestic policy, but has ended up to the right of Ed Miliband. Labour claims to want to win elections, but is addicted to unpopular centrist economic policies. It claims to want to reconnect with working-class voters, but in practice excludes them. Starmer’s approach claims to be about rational, sensible politics, but is in fact governed by ingrained dogmas. Perhaps Labour will win the next general election, but if so it will be in spite of a leadership that promises one thing then does the opposite.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2022 Jeff Minard