Is it wise to freeze energy prices ?

[mistermack]

A lot of European countries seem to be considering freezing energy prices below market prices, and to use government money to pay for the difference. The UK has already announced a two year freeze plan. (possibly costing taxpayers £150 billion)

I'm not sure it's a good option. I'm not against intervention and support for domestic bill payers, but I have my doubts if this is the best way, or the right scale. 

The obvious problem with it is the cost, which is absolutely huge. Someone will have to pay it, and that someone is tax payers. No matter how you smoothe it out, the tax payer will pay. If you do nothing, the users pay for what they use. Which is the general rule for most things. If I go for a drink, I pay for it. If I put fuel in my car, I pay for it. In fact, I pay tax on top. So this is the reverse. If I use electricity or gas, instead of me paying the price, the tax payer pays a chunk of it.

The main problem with that, is that if you freeze the price, you reduce the incentive to economise. If the price of diesel shot up, I might decide to drive less, and use the bus more. Or use pedal power. The money saved would make economising more attractive and worthwhile. 

That's how inflation is normally kept in check. If sellers raise prices, buyers look for economies and cheaper alternatives. The balance of supply/demand controls inflation. You are losing that, if you subsidise the price.

I would favour direct money grants to bill payers rather than price freezes. That way, there is still a big incentive to use less, and more chance of market prices coming down. 

Of course, there is a downside to that as well. Some people will just blow the grant money on something else and still find that they can't pay their fuel bills. But there might be ways around that, like a delay in paying the grant, and using it on fuel bills, if people are in arrears.

Anyway, I'm not decided myself, I just wondered what others would think.

[dimreepr]

"Is it wise to freeze energy prices ?"

There's a certain level of irony here, I wonder if you'll notice...

19 minutes ago, mistermack said:

The obvious problem with it is the cost, which is absolutely huge. Someone will have to pay it, and that someone is tax payers. No matter how you smoothe it out, the tax payer will pay.

Indeed, it's relatively simple:

Cut tax and it's your children's tax that pays the bill, that they can't afford.

Tax everyone equally, and "WE" can afford it.

The obvious problem here is, Mr Jack... 🧐

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

A lot of European countries seem to be considering freezing energy prices below market prices, and to use government money to pay for the difference. The UK has already announced a two year freeze plan. (possibly costing taxpayers £150 billion)

I'm not sure it's a good option. I'm not against intervention and support for domestic bill payers, but I have my doubts if this is the best way, or the right scale. 

The obvious problem with it is the cost, which is absolutely huge. Someone will have to pay it, and that someone is tax payers. No matter how you smoothe it out, the tax payer will pay. If you do nothing, the users pay for what they use. Which is the general rule for most things. If I go for a drink, I pay for it. If I put fuel in my car, I pay for it. In fact, I pay tax on top. So this is the reverse. If I use electricity or gas, instead of me paying the price, the tax payer pays a chunk of it.

The main problem with that, is that if you freeze the price, you reduce the incentive to economise. If the price of diesel shot up, I might decide to drive less, and use the bus more. Or use pedal power. The money saved would make economising more attractive and worthwhile. 

That's how inflation is normally kept in check. If sellers raise prices, buyers look for economies and cheaper alternatives. The balance of supply/demand controls inflation. You are losing that, if you subsidise the price.

I would favour direct money grants to bill payers rather than price freezes. That way, there is still a big incentive to use less, and more chance of market prices coming down. 

Of course, there is a downside to that as well. Some people will just blow the grant money on something else and still find that they can't pay their fuel bills. But there might be ways around that, like a delay in paying the grant, and using it on fuel bills, if people are in arrears.

Anyway, I'm not decided myself, I just wondered what others would think.

Yes, I think the UK would do better to target the help at lower income groups and use a windfall tax of wider scope to help fund it. At present it is not only the fossil fuel companies that are making money way in excess of what their investment plans were based on, but also the electricity generators that do not use fossil fuel (renewables, nuclear), because the market price for electricity is set by the gas-based generators.

I have read in the FT that some of the renewable operators would actually welcome moving to a different pricing system that gave them more predictable revenues, even if they would make less money at a time of shortage like the present.  A more constant revenue stream removes risk, and risk always costs a premium when it comes to business investment, as well as reducing the number of interested participants.  

Truss is trying to be a papier mâché Thatcher wannabe, to follow the papier mâché Churchill wannabe that we have just got rid of. But that's decades out of date. 

I think fuel prices and electricity bills are already high enough to make everyone want to economise and think about alternatives. Going even higher would for some people mean dying of cold or starving. So targeted government help, at least, seems unavoidable to me.

Edited September 11, 2022 by exchemist

[J.C.MacSwell]

+1 to the OP.

If they knew what they were doing, and had the gonads to do it, they would put significant taxes on energy (or at least fossil fuels...aka carbon taxes) and use the taxes to help those who could least afford it, with no requirement for them to use any energy at all.

So essentially increase the price of energy, and encourage conservation, rather than subsidize the use of it by holding the prices down.

Edited September 12, 2022 by J.C.MacSwell

[dimreepr]

14 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So essentially increase the price of energy, and encourage conservation, rather than subsidize the use of it by holding the prices down.

Every decision has consequences and every consequence is death for someone

The question then becomes, would you throw your granny/children under the bus to save you???

[Sensei]

16 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If they knew what they were doing, and had the gonads to do it, they would put significant taxes on energy (or at least fossil fuels...aka carbon taxes) and use the taxes to help those who could least afford it, with no requirement for them to use any energy at all.

Wow. Facepalm. The thread is about how to lower already excessive energy prices, and you suggest how to make things even worse.. ? Do you have any idea that increased energy prices would be immediately passed on to customers, i.e. everyone? Baker needs energy to heat stove. The same with almost all businesses, farmers, transport.. Higher costs of food production, higher costs of delivery of food and other goods to shops, higher prices of rental housing (gas, electricity) and so on, so on.. Increased taxes are always passed on to the end customers, or business in capitalistic country must be shut down. The UK is a net importer of food ("In 2020, the UK imported 46% of the food it consumed"). Maybe Brits should eat less (some obese, for sure) and have one shower per week, or month, and have to go to sleep at 18 to not have to turn lights on when it is dark..

On 9/11/2022 at 1:43 PM, mistermack said:

Of course, there is a downside to that as well. Some people will just blow the grant money on something else and still find that they can't pay their fuel bills. But there might be ways around that, like a delay in paying the grant, and using it on fuel bills, if people are in arrears.

..sounds like you're talking about domestic energy usage.. which is just a part of country energy usage..

Business and farmers are also energy consumers. Increased costs of fuel will have result in inflation of price of whatever they produce or transport.

It is easy/easier to reduce energy usage by individual customers. For example, make free buses and free city public transport, and less people will use private cars, reducing air pollution and carbon based fuels use. Refrigerator is not an essential accessory (especially in winter, I keep meat on the balcony). There are refrigerator-free food preservation methods like pickling, which worked for thousands years.

The city can reduce energy consumption by turning off streetlights late at night. During the first wave of COVID-19, local authorities turned off the streetlights completely, and for the first time ever we had the opportunity to see the stars without the light pollution of a big city.

The city can reduce energy consumption by closing public offices and schools (the energy needed to heat them) and using online alternatives.

UK residents are at least fortunate (so far) that they don't have many days of -20C or -30 C in a year like we do.

 

The price goes up because demand is high and supply is low. If demand decreases, the price will naturally fall.

There is space for many optimizations and improvements. For example, a baker could be informed before starting work how many buns and breads are needed for the next day. IT could make an app that connects end customers with producers of food that cannot be stored for long, as in the case of a bakery. Exact quantity = less waste = less energy demand.

Edited September 13, 2022 by Sensei

[J.C.MacSwell]

23 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Wow. Facepalm. The thread is about how to lower already excessive energy prices, and you suggest how to make things even worse.. ? Do you have any idea that increased energy prices would be immediately passed on to customers, i.e. everyone?

 

Yes. 

Think higher prices might decrease demand?

29 minutes ago, Sensei said:

 

 

The price goes up because demand is high and supply is low. If demand decreases, the price will naturally fall.

 

 

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Every decision has consequences and every consequence is death for someone

The question then becomes, would you throw your granny/children under the bus to save you???

Yes. If granny and the children are flying in their private jets they can pay the increased prices and the extra taxes can go to other's grannies and children who can barely afford to heat their homes.

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, Sensei said:

Wow. Facepalm. The thread is about how to lower already excessive energy prices, and you suggest how to make things even worse.. ? Do you have any idea that increased energy prices would be immediately passed on to customers, i.e. everyone? Baker needs energy to heat stove. The same with almost all businesses, farmers, transport.. Higher costs of food production, higher costs of delivery of food and other goods to shops, higher prices of rental housing (gas, electricity) and so on, so on.. Increased taxes are always passed on to the end customers, or business in capitalistic country must be shut down. The UK is a net importer of food ("In 2020, the UK imported 46% of the food it consumed"). Maybe Brits should eat less (some obese, for sure) and have one shower per week, or month, and have to go to sleep at 18 to not have to turn lights on when it is dark..

..sounds like you're talking about domestic energy usage.. which is just a part of country energy usage..

Business and farmers are also energy consumers. Increased costs of fuel will have result in inflation of price of whatever they produce or transport.

It is easy/easier to reduce energy usage by individual customers. For example, make free buses and free city public transport, and less people will use private cars, reducing air pollution and carbon based fuels use. Refrigerator is not an essential accessory (especially in winter, I keep meat on the balcony). There are refrigerator-free food preservation methods like pickling, which worked for thousands years.

The city can reduce energy consumption by turning off streetlights late at night. During the first wave of COVID-19, local authorities turned off the streetlights completely, and for the first time ever we had the opportunity to see the stars without the light pollution of a big city.

The city can reduce energy consumption by closing public offices and schools (the energy needed to heat them) and using online alternatives.

UK residents are at least fortunate (so far) that they don't have many days of -20C or -30 C in a year like we do.

 

The price goes up because demand is high and supply is low. If demand decreases, the price will naturally fall.

There is space for many optimizations and improvements. For example, a baker could be informed before starting work how many buns and breads are needed for the next day. IT could make an app that connects end customers with producers of food that cannot be stored for long, as in the case of a bakery. Exact quantity = less waste = less energy demand.

I was interested to read today that Goldman Sachs believes the spot price of gas may halve by the end of this N hemisphere winter, as a result of the alternative supply and stockbuilding measures being implemented by the EU. Appears the EU is ahead of their stockbuild target, floating LNG gasification plants are already in place in the Netherlands with more to follow in Germany, and there has been some success in curtailing gas demand. So this may be a fairly short-lived spike, in which case government borrowing to tide us over may not be quite as foolhardy as it first seemed.  And then Russia will be screwed, as not only will the price come down dramatically, but nearly all their gas pipelines are West-facing and nobody in Europe will ever rely on them again. But a very hard winter could change the calculation.......  

Edited September 13, 2022 by exchemist

[Ken Fabian]

Whether it is wise will be in the detail. Mostly the gas suppliers apart from Russia are not supplying less and are not producing less. Their costs may have risen marginally but their prices and profits have gone stratospheric. They won't willingly cut their prices down to mere very good profits, not even to prevent global economic disaster, even though perceptions of them as greedy and careless of consequences could conceivably harm their businesses over the longer term. As global recession could too.

Some nations are taxing the super profits, ie have made the cause of rising prices the source of some funding for price interventions, but where the gas industry has the ears of policymakers and influence they appear capable of turning this sense of crisis into an opportunity for growth, with taxpayer money flowing to them, rather than away, irrespective of their current extreme profitability. They will fiercely resist price caps at producer level - mostly successfully. It will be power companies that purchase fuels off them at inflated prices (some being subsidiaries and not actually separate) that will be needing assistance to prevent the costs flowing through - which may come directly or indirectly from funding support for price differences at consumer level.

I think we do need to see this as short term. Longer term will see greatly increased commitment to renewable energy and to the things that weren't done to make it constantly available... because gas was, we were assured, able to do it much cheaper and more reliably, which everyone except Greens supported. I expect that their failure to deliver that reliable supply at low cost - plus global warming concerns not going away will only make them more determined to reframe this fossil fuel energy crisis into a 'green' energy crisis. With an overflowing abundance of financial resources to put towards lobbying, PR, advertising, strategic donations, tactical lawfare, post politics payoffs etc.

[sethoflagos]

8 hours ago, exchemist said:

I was interested to read today that Goldman Sachs believes the spot price of gas may halve by the end of this N hemisphere winter, as a result of the alternative supply and stockbuilding measures being implemented by the EU. Appears the EU is ahead of their stockbuild target, floating LNG gasification plants are already in place in the Netherlands with more to follow in Germany, and there has been some success in curtailing gas demand. So this may be a fairly short-lived spike, in which case government borrowing to tide us over may not be quite as foolhardy as it first seemed.  And then Russia will be screwed, as not only will the price come down dramatically, but nearly all their gas pipelines are West-facing and nobody in Europe will ever rely on them again. But a very hard winter could change the calculation.......  

Good points, but aren't we beyond the point where short term fixes to energy policies are adequate?

We've seen over the last 40 years the malevolent influence of the fossil fuels lobby in derailing the climate debate. In recent years, they've been extending this influence to other aspects of government policy through the largely undisclosed funding of right wing 'think tanks' and pseudo-academic bodies around the globe, in order to further political aims that go way beyond merely increasing the dividend income for their shareholders. 

The parallels between their current malign political activities and those of Krupps and Thyssen in early 1930s Germany are striking.

Given the social and strategic significance, one could now make a very strong case for putting the entire energy sector under state control via compulsory purchase. This would give future governments the opportunity to manage fiscal policy, social welfare, climate change and energy policy in a holistic manner plus remove a major agency of corruption in public life as a well-needed bonus. 

[Ned]

On 9/11/2022 at 12:43 PM, mistermack said:

A lot of European countries seem to be considering freezing energy prices below market prices, and to use government money to pay for the difference. The UK has already announced a two year freeze plan. (possibly costing taxpayers £150 billion)

I'm not sure it's a good option. I'm not against intervention and support for domestic bill payers, but I have my doubts if this is the best way, or the right scale. 

The obvious problem with it is the cost, which is absolutely huge. Someone will have to pay it, and that someone is tax payers. No matter how you smoothe it out, the tax payer will pay. If you do nothing, the users pay for what they use. Which is the general rule for most things. If I go for a drink, I pay for it. If I put fuel in my car, I pay for it. In fact, I pay tax on top. So this is the reverse. If I use electricity or gas, instead of me paying the price, the tax payer pays a chunk of it.

The main problem with that, is that if you freeze the price, you reduce the incentive to economise. If the price of diesel shot up, I might decide to drive less, and use the bus more. Or use pedal power. The money saved would make economising more attractive and worthwhile. 

That's how inflation is normally kept in check. If sellers raise prices, buyers look for economies and cheaper alternatives. The balance of supply/demand controls inflation. You are losing that, if you subsidise the price.

I would favour direct money grants to bill payers rather than price freezes. That way, there is still a big incentive to use less, and more chance of market prices coming down. 

Of course, there is a downside to that as well. Some people will just blow the grant money on something else and still find that they can't pay their fuel bills. But there might be ways around that, like a delay in paying the grant, and using it on fuel bills, if people are in arrears.

Anyway, I'm not decided myself, I just wondered what others would think.

Electricity , gas , fuel , food etc should be expensive . Televisions , beds , cookers ,housing  etc, should be cheap . I have never known such a backwards planet ! 

 

 

[exchemist]

6 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Good points, but aren't we beyond the point where short term fixes to energy policies are adequate?

We've seen over the last 40 years the malevolent influence of the fossil fuels lobby in derailing the climate debate. In recent years, they've been extending this influence to other aspects of government policy through the largely undisclosed funding of right wing 'think tanks' and pseudo-academic bodies around the globe, in order to further political aims that go way beyond merely increasing the dividend income for their shareholders. 

The parallels between their current malign political activities and those of Krupps and Thyssen in early 1930s Germany are striking.

Given the social and strategic significance, one could now make a very strong case for putting the entire energy sector under state control via compulsory purchase. This would give future governments the opportunity to manage fiscal policy, social welfare, climate change and energy policy in a holistic manner plus remove a major agency of corruption in public life as a well-needed bonus. 

I'm not sure how that idea can work. Fossil fuels, on which we will continue to have some need for decades, are by nature internationally traded commodities, exploitation and supply of which is controlled already by national governments. There's no way any nation can control the price of stuff they get from other countries, and no prospect at all of any global agreement among them all.

Where I suppose you raise an interesting question is if, as we move progressively to renewables, those at least can be state-controlled, and if they were, would that be a good thing. My inclination is to think not. Experience seems to show the best route normally is to allow commercial enterprise a role but under a controlling framework set by government. That's what I think the current crisis has exposed in the UK: a free-for all in the electricity market may not be good for the country or - I was very interested to read - for the electricity producers, who are exposed to wild swings in profitability and can't formulate a robust business plan without building in massive risk premia - for which consumers, in the end, have to pay.   

Edited September 14, 2022 by exchemist

[sethoflagos]

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

I'm not sure how that idea can work. Fossil fuels, on which we will continue to have some need for decades, are by nature internationally traded commodities, exploitation and supply of which is controlled already by national governments. There's no way any nation can control the price of stuff they get from other countries, and no prospect at all of any global agreement among them all.

However, the national economy has the resources to absorb short term large fluctuations in supply pricing, and maintain a stable pricing structure within its own borders. This would be of benefit to most, if not all, wouldn't it? 

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

Where I suppose you raise an interesting question is if, as we move progressively to renewables, those at least can be state-controlled, and if they were, would that be a good thing. My inclination is to think not. Experience seems to show the best route normally is to allow commercial enterprise a role but under a controlling framework set by government.  

The balance of public and private enterprise within a mixed economy, is just that. A balance. We have no fundamental disagreement here. The challenge as I see it is that the transformation to a carbon neutral economy requires a substantial investment and development programme that the private sector would be unwilling to engage in without massive government subsidies. And if the current UK government has taught us anything, it's that a large percentage of taxpayers subsidies of private enterprise gets routed into offshore tax havens to the detriment of the tax payer. I see more sense in public ownership here.

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

 

That's what I think the current crisis has exposed in the UK: a free-for all in the electricity market may not be good for the country or - I was very interested to read - for the electricity producers, who are exposed to wild swings in profitability and can't formulate a robust business plan without building in massive risk premia - for which consumers, in the end, have to pay.   

Exactly. But I would add that since energy costs are a large cost factor for most businesses, then this argument applies pretty well across the board.

Edited September 14, 2022 by sethoflagos

[dimreepr]

It's always struck me that an unrestricted/unregulated version of capitalism, is a rather silly way to ensure one's future...

Feel free to ask me why, the answer is...

7 hours ago, Ned said:

Electricity , gas , fuel , food etc should be expensive . Televisions , beds , cookers ,housing  etc, should be cheap . I have never known such a backwards planet ! 

If you're going to post, at least try to make sense... 😉

[Endy0816]

On 9/14/2022 at 10:42 AM, dimreepr said:

It's always struck me that an unrestricted/unregulated version of capitalism, is a rather silly way to ensure one's future...

Feel free to ask me why, the answer is...

For sure.

My own Utilities provider is owned by the city which I think is a better model.

[John Cuthber]

The plan is to give vast sums of money to an industry that is already making a huge profit from the turmoil of war.
Then to get the taxpayers to pay for that handout.

The rationale behind this is that the government is paid by the energy companies.


 

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

The plan is to give vast sums of money to an industry that is already making a huge profit from the turmoil of war.
Then to get the taxpayers to pay for that handout.

The rationale behind this is that the government is paid by the energy companies.


 

Yes there's a lot of pious nonsense talked by Truss about not putting companies off investing. But the business cases on which these oil and gas, or renewable generation, investments were made never envisaged profit margins anywhere close to what they are earning at present, thanks to Putin and the war. I am convinced the major fossil fuel companies expect to have some of it clawed back. But they are not going to volunteer to hand it back, obviously, because of duty to their shareholders.  

[Ken Fabian]

On 9/13/2022 at 8:19 AM, J.C.MacSwell said:

+1 to the OP.

If they knew what they were doing, and had the gonads to do it, they would put significant taxes on energy (or at least fossil fuels...aka carbon taxes) and use the taxes to help those who could least afford it, with no requirement for them to use any energy at all.

So essentially increase the price of energy, and encourage conservation, rather than subsidize the use of it by holding the prices down.

A few nations do have the will to tax the windfall profits and use those for easing the short burden on the most burdened but also for supporting investment in longer term solutions. Others lack the will, whether genuinely believing only fossil fuels are good enough or politically beholden or cowed by the influence of this industry - which does appear capable of deliberately constraining supplies to keep high profits and using a sense of crisis to advance their industry.

Apart from dealing with the short term harms of the current conflict induced energy crisis, that needs quick fixes, I would agree with carbon pricing at producer level and using other actions to reduce the hit passed on to consumers, especially for those at risk of hardship. Although I wonder to what extent high fossil fuel prices will work unintentionally as carbon pricing; it seems like greater commitment to renewable energy is emerging out of the current crisis, in large part because of an expectation that prices may never decline to pre-crisis levels. And climate change concerns are not going away.

I see carbon pricing as about inducing investor choices and only about consumer choice indirectly, that framing it as about consumer choice  misses the point that changing the supply of energy is the main point. And it probably couldn't do what we want until and unless there are other options that are approaching or have achieved some level of cost competitiveness; if the gap is too great (and not so long ago that looked like a given) the result will be the counterproductive outcome the economic alarmist fear of green energy targets, ie rising costs that hurt consumers but effect no change.

If carbon pricing works then revenues should decline to zero, and carbon pricing should be designed to be avoidable, ie it should not be treated as an enduring source of revenue. 

Edited September 17, 2022 by Ken Fabian

[Ned]

12 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

The rationale behind this is that the government is paid by the energy companies.


 

The rationale behind this is that the government owns the energy companies and that is why they are able to set the tarrifs . Additionally they are seemingly ripping us off with their one way electric meters . In the UK brown is often live and blue is neutral . Energy comes through my meter then through the brown wire , the energy then travels back through the blue wire in circuit back into the national grid . AC is a cost effective way of making money alright , there is no meter measuring how much energy goes back into the national grid through the blue wire ! 

 

[dimreepr]

8 hours ago, Ned said:

The rationale behind this is that the government owns the energy companies and that is why they are able to set the tarrifs . Additionally they are seemingly ripping us off with their one way electric meters . In the UK brown is often live and blue is neutral . Energy comes through my meter then through the brown wire , the energy then travels back through the blue wire in circuit back into the national grid . AC is a cost effective way of making money alright , there is no meter measuring how much energy goes back into the national grid through the blue wire ! 

 

How can we be sure that you're rational or haven't just plugged yourself into the mains?

[Ned]

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

How can we be sure that you're rational or haven't just plugged yourself into the mains?

Rational thinking requires the mind to calculate multiple outcomes simultaneously . Another persons rational thinking may differ from my own rational thinking , that is the affect of simultainety . It isn't difficult to think of the causality of any situation  with some degree of accuracy , predicting a future based on each and every model . Unlike politics , in science we apply scientific method to chaos , bringing order to disorder . 

Needs and wants in life are two different things , we need food , we need energy to cook our food . Wants in life are very subjective ,'' I'' want a huge television or a 2 ltr engine in my car so I can just waste vital supplies in vanity ! 

 

 

[John Cuthber]

13 hours ago, Ned said:

the government owns the energy companies

No. The shareholders own them.
And the rest of your post isn't much better.

[Ned]

10 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

No. The shareholders own them.
And the rest of your post isn't much better.

The share holders invest in them but do you honestly think that the governments of the world would allow energy to be controlled by anyone other than themselves ? The managers of energy companies are just ''puppets'' in a world of control . I'm not talking about money here , I'm talking about control . Look how the US shut down Nicolai Tesla , Edison being a Gov employee . 

The fact is John , the earth is full of conductive elements and because of this , the Earth is  conserving a large amount of electrical energy  , that is increasing the internal energy of the Earths system . In light of this , the whole world needs to cut down on their electrical energy use before we end up with the Earths orbit being displaced . No worries don't listen to me , I'm a nobody who knows nothing ! 

 

Edited September 17, 2022 by Ned

[Endy0816]

Really I think the government should have a controlling stake in anything vital.

Free market may or may not result in better efficiencies, but that's no good if the country goes under in the persuit of short term profits.

 

Half the time Utilities are a natural monopoly anyways.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly

 

[sethoflagos]

7 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

Really I think the government should have a controlling stake in anything vital.

Free market may or may not result in better efficiencies, but that's no good if the country goes under in the persuit of short term profits.

 

Half the time Utilities are a natural monopoly anyways.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly

During the nineties I got a contract to assist in the design of a major upgrade to waste water treatment on the Tees estuary - a mix of urban and heavy industrial effluent (ICI Billingham mainly).

A part of this involved the analysis of historic datasets to identify and quantify the significance of various input streams. Data was good up until 1989 when the UK water industry was privatised. Within a couple of weeks of privatisation, testing for 'red list' compounds (the really nasty stuff like dioxins and tin(IV) organic biocides) that had been religiously observed for decades stopped suddenly and completely.

Draw your own conclusions as to the attitude of private enterprise to the health and well-being of its customers.  

Edited September 18, 2022 by sethoflagos
sp