The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[The Esk]

It was a loaded statement and not a loaded question

Anyway...I'll leave it. I profoundly agree that poor people need help. Which should come from the government and not for foundations. However, calling on publicly traded companies to eat into their profits for the greater good really isn't what capitalism is built on.

Hence the question as to whether or not they should be publicly quoted companies..............

 

[ilikecheese]

Hence the question as to whether or not they should be publicly quoted companies..............

Crap...just edited my post. It was meant to say 'not for profit foundations'.

Anyway...I would rather see it privatized...but the key to privatization is competition.

Which, unfortunately doesn't seem to be a reality right now.

Unfortunately, once you've jumped down the rabbit hole of privatization it's not exactly easy to go back.

 

[The Esk]

Crap...just edited my post. It was meant to say 'not for profit foundations'.

Anyway...I would rather see it privatized...but the key to privatization is competition.

Which, unfortunately doesn't seem to be a reality right now.

Unfortunately, once you've jumped down the rabbit hole of privatization it's not exactly easy to go back.

Unless you look at different sources of capital - for example public sector pension funds

 

[ilikecheese]

Unless you look at different sources of capital - for example public sector pension funds

Sorry...probably being thick here, but I'm not following.

 

[The Esk]

Sorry...probably being thick here, but I'm not following.

Sorry for being obtuse - the traditional model is private capital provided by investors of all types, individuals, institutions, pension funds etc v public funds provided by the Government.

I would argue there is a third model which uses capital provided by public sector pension funds, socially responsible investors and charitable organisations.

If the latter source of capital concentrated its investing activities on utilities then we might reach a scenario where shareholder interests are in line with consumers.

It's a form of socially inclusive investing where consumers contribute to the well being of pensioners through a sensible pricing/profitabilty model in the knowledge they will become beneficiaries too in the future.

 

[ThebanksoftheBramleyMoore]

Well a few posts because you were openly talking about directors breaking the law, which is what I was picking up on. The govt may set new law, rather than break it?

It kind of will be breaking the law but because it's the government it's kind of not. Shades are grey in politics so it depends on how you look at it.


They're two of the same thing. People on low incomes are vulnerable and often have to go without heat during the winter. Those who are most likely to die are the elderly who, i agree, should get extra protection.

But you tell me why it's not viable to give those on low incomes cheaper heating? You said yourself these companies are making billions. Let's legislate to make it happen. Shareholders will jump ship if they're not happy - so what?

22% of the UK households are living in low-income housing thresholds (poverty.org.), I think that is to high a number to be able to offer large caps, british gas make less than £50 I believe on each household however every household needs heating so the numbers add up. Maybe offering low income households the prices at break-even so they don't profit of them.

It is shocking that people can't afford to heat there homes in Britain but for most not having heating isn't a life or death issue so I think large reductions should be for the most vulnerable.

 

[ilikecheese]

Sorry for being obtuse - the traditional model is private capital provided by investors of all types, individuals, institutions, pension funds etc v public funds provided by the Government.

I would argue there is a third model which uses capital provided by public sector pension funds, socially responsible investors and charitable organisations.

If the latter source of capital concentrated its investing activities on utilities then we might reach a scenario where shareholder interests are in line with consumers.

It's a form of socially inclusive investing where consumers contribute to the well being of pensioners through a sensible pricing/profitabilty model in the knowledge they will become beneficiaries too in the future.

It's definitely an interesting idea. Sounds a bit utopian, but it could work. Use of public sector pension funds would scare the bejesus out of politicians I'd imagine.

 

[The Esk]

It's definitely an interesting idea. Sounds a bit utopian, but it could work. Use of public sector pension funds would scare the bejesus out of politicians I'd imagine.

The politicians (or nominees) would have to replace the trustees of the existing pension funds. The problem is that the trustees have a commercial interest.

How can you act as a trustee if you have a commercial interest?

 

[ilikecheese]

The politicians (or nominees) would have to replace the trustees of the existing pension funds. The problem is that the trustees have a commercial interest.

How can you act as a trustee if you have a commercial interest?

Haha...that is a conundrum.

 

[Walken]

Haha...that is a conundrum.

LOL at this grit eating hillbilly telling us how to run our country, they melt the poor down to make guns in america

 

[ilikecheese]

LOL at this grit eating hillbilly telling us how to run our country, they melt the poor down to make guns in america

Haha...that was pretty good.

Unlike some of your countrymen, I have not suggested that you lot become the U.K.S.R.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I wonder if this isn't looking at things from the wrong perspective? I mean most homes are incredibly inefficient. I know Donnachadh McCarthy and whilst he's a bit weird and annoying, he knows his bacon with regards to energy efficiency. He's managed to tinker with his own home to the extent that his bills are a few pounds a year (£18 last year I think). Nothing illegal, just extraordinarily energy efficient, plus a bit of generating energy at home.

He's about as big a hippy as you'll ever find, so I suspect he didn't spend huge sums on doing this, and doing this kind of thing to the homes of the elderly would not only help them directly, but would also significantly raise the value of the housing stock.

That seems a more practical approach than trying to change the very nature of how energy is produced in the first place. At least that is until solar becomes cheap enough to be installed (or painted most likely) on everyones home.

 

[ilikecheese]

I wonder if this isn't looking at things from the wrong perspective? I mean most homes are incredibly inefficient. I know Donnachadh McCarthy and whilst he's a bit weird and annoying, he knows his bacon with regards to energy efficiency. He's managed to tinker with his own home to the extent that his bills are a few pounds a year (£18 last year I think). Nothing illegal, just extraordinarily energy efficient, plus a bit of generating energy at home.

He's about as big a hippy as you'll ever find, so I suspect he didn't spend huge sums on doing this, and doing this kind of thing to the homes of the elderly would not only help them directly, but would also significantly raise the value of the housing stock.

That seems a more practical approach than trying to change the very nature of how energy is produced in the first place. At least that is until solar becomes cheap enough to be installed (or painted most likely) on everyones home.

It's not a terrible idea mate...but the focus here is the poorest of the poor. Your strategy in theory would make things cheaper for the haves...but the have nots would still be mired in their dilemma..

I think @the esk is onto something with his idea. And I will accept a board position. Overall the challenge will be telling cops, firefighters, and politicians that their pension will be invested for the greater good.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

It's not a terrible idea mate...but the focus here is the poorest of the poor. Your strategy in theory would make things cheaper for the haves...but the have nots would still be mired in their dilemma..

I think @the esk is onto something with his idea. And I will accept a board position. Overall the challenge will be telling cops, firefighters, and politicians that their pension will be invested for the greater good.

Ok, so the poorest of the poor are likely to be in receipt of state aid in some way. They might quite possibly be living in state accommodation. Therefore surely it's in the domain of the state to improve their energy efficiency? Given that McCarthy's house probably uses 1-2% of the energy of the average house, I'm sure there would be some easy savings for relatively small investment that would do much more for said pensioner than lopping a few quid off of their bill.

That seems much more tangible than trying to set up some quasi-nationalized energy industry

 

[ilikecheese]

Ok, so the poorest of the poor are likely to be in receipt of state aid in some way. They might quite possibly be living in state accommodation. Therefore surely it's in the domain of the state to improve their energy efficiency? Given that McCarthy's house probably uses 1-2% of the energy of the average house, I'm sure there would be some easy savings for relatively small investment that would do much more for said pensioner than lopping a few quid off of their bill.

That seems much more tangible than trying to set up some quasi-nationalized energy industry

Sounds uber utopian...I understand your argument, but wouldn't the wealthy rise the price of the magic solar paint simply on demand?