Comments by "DeoMachina" (@DeoMachina) on "Energy Privatisation is Bankrupting Britain" video.

  1. It's been like a decade and you babies are still so mad About..what exactly
    2
  2. Okay, but how come I have to do both and still get less?
    2
  3.  @ExistenceUniversity  This is all incorrect, I can prove it with an example: Let's say there is a monopoly on coffee shops. One company owns them all, without relying on the government. According to you, anybody can step in and compete by underselling, right? Except you're wrong, they can't. Established companies with huge profits can afford to make losses for years if they have to, so they can simply undersell in areas where they face competition. One company necessarily runs out of money first, who is it going to be? The smaller company. Want a real world example? Blu-Ray discs. Sony were losing money for years over the expensive development of Blu-Ray. But it became the dominant medium because Sony are a megacorporation that can simply afford to out-subsidise their rivals. Still not convinced? Go on then, make Blu-Ray obsolete. Do it. Compete with Sony. What's the matter? Can't do it? Then I'm right, and you're wrong.
    2
  4.  @ExistenceUniversity  "You have changed your example midway through it" Incorrect, I simply gave you multiple examples. Get it right. "Blu-ray vs DVD" Interesting this is what you think I'm referring to "based on preference not monopoly, people preferred VHS and Blu-ray" And now they are a monopoly. Glad we agree. " in fact, who still uses Blu-ray? Who buys physical copied these days? So I don't think your argument holds up one bit on that end." Stores are stuffed full of them, so my argument does hold up, actually. "If I open a local coffee shop and there are Starbucks coffee shops, then by definition Starbucks is not a monopoly" If you're going to cite a definition, you had better get the definition correct. In this case you have failed to do so. I advise you to look up what it means.
    2
  5.  @tomasvlasak6459  The LibDems aren't socialist, Labour haven't been in power since 2010 and the last Labour government was explicitly anti-socialist, following a right-wing agenda for 12 years. " it looks like Tories are following them (high taxes, extreme levels of regulation, green ideology, anti business, anti wealth)" The tories put taxes down, destroyed vital regulations, are completely opposed to green policy, and have been falling over themselves to hand as much public money to private industry as possible.
    2
  6. How's the private housing market working out for you there
    2
  7. They said this in 2008 as we hit the recession and austerity And what was the "great music" we got? Dubstep.
    2
  8. Actually energy companies started price gouging
    2
  9. So the poverty, mass slaughter, failing state apparatus and environmental destruction is worth it? Just to stop national industry?
    1
  10.  @ExistenceUniversity  Oooh that cut deep huh
    1
  11. This is the UK, we don't have those
    1
  12. I looked it up and Finland's electricity prices were less than half of the UK's 🤔
    1
  13. Things were already getting increasingly bad before Brexit, this isn't a problem the EU would fix
    1
  14. How did deregulation work in Texas again? Oh, terribly?
    1
  15.  @themekfrommars  " consumers prefer power loss over the excess cost" Cool cool let's just gloss over the fact that private ownership killed people then Cool
    1
  16.  @themekfrommars  Incorrect, my knowledge actually outstrips your own. The fact you aren't able to engage with anything I say proves it.
    1
  17.  @pauln6803  Making our lives worse is not actually more practical. Labour have said they intend to freeze prices as they currently stand, at their record high. That's not practical, that's evil.
    1
  18.  @pauln6803  "High prices are here to stay as once inflation is able to run away, there's very little that can be done" They can just cap prices. They won't, but that's an option they have.
    1
  19.  @pauln6803  "Somehow I don't think you want the energy supply sector going bust en masse" Did that happen in the rest of Europe? "Besides, even if your plan is to force them to go bust" The plan is to make price gouging illegal. "You can keep on dreaming of a socialist utopia, but it ain't coming any time soon." I didn't propose anything even close to socialism, I'm not proposing anything that hasn't successfully worked in neighbouring countries. "Like it or not, Labour has to target middle England and what I call the "sometimes a Tory" vote to get into power." And they're going to do that by forcing them to pay high energy prices? Is that what tory voters want? Fair play if that's the case, but Labour are walking into an electoral trap imo. "Now if the British public get behind proportional representation and Labour is able to ditch first past the post..." Labour supported FPTP. They don't want PR. I mean jesus, they don't even run their CLP's democratically.
    1
  20. In this case, the core idea is flawed Private profit as a concept isn't workable
    1
  21.  @vitre69  "Please refrain from discarding the idea just because "capitalism bad"." I mean you did say this: " I'm much more in favor of taking whatever system we already have and make it work, unless the core idea itself is flawed" And the core idea IS flawed. Capitalism IS bad lmao
    1
  22.  @vitre69  I mean if you want to talk about capitalism in Brazil, doesn't the fact that private profit incentivised genocide and deforestation give you pause? And when people tried to end it democratically, capitalism rose up to attempt a coup? And for what? Did the poor in Brazil get richer out of this sacrifice? Not really.
    1
  23.  @vitre69  I'm referring to capitalism not working, not the energy sector in isolation.
    1
  24.  @vitre69  "So its not a problem with capitalism itself" You just described capitalism doing something terrible and expect me to believe that? Companies from outside? From where? From capitalist countries? Poor communities? Why are they poor? Because of capitalism perhaps? "I reiterate here what I said before, capitalism works best when its well implemented and regulated" In 200 years there has not been a single regulation or implementation that lasted, there is no law you can pass that capitalism will not strip away when it is convenient.
    1
  25.  @vitre69  "The communities are poor because the governement here historically did all it could to "protect the local culture" and wrecked the possibility of people having businesses of their own" Not everybody can have businesses and stop being poor, that's mathematically impossible. Think about what you're saying here. "Lastly, I really don't get where you are arriving at the conclusion that under capitalism rules don't last but magically in communism it would because yes" In capitalism, rich people decide what rules exist and when they are to be removed. We even have a word for it - lobbying. "In capitalism at least people have the chance to not starve" Capitalism starves more people in a decade than communism did in a century, and it's not even close
    1
  26.  @vitre69  "You clearly disregard what money even is if you think people can't better their quality of life through honest work" You think you're being clever, but you're simply implying that everybody who works and doesn't improve their life is simply not working hard enough, as if the universe is forced to reward effort. It's not. "About lobbying, it's illegal here" So your politicians do it for free then? The results speak for themselves, Brazil is home to incredible wealth and also the worst poverty on the continent. Square that circle. "About starvation. You are in desperate need to prove your claim here." Take it up with the UN, they're the ones making the claims about starvation. Estimates vary from between 1 to 9 million people dying of starvation every year. There are over 800 million people currently suffering malnutrition right now. There's no way to reframe this, no context you can add that makes socialism look worse on this issue.
    1
  27.  @vitre69  "Maybe they won't be filthy rich given where said community is located, but let me tell you what they would have: food. As it stands they don't have even that with proper sanitation." I'd like to point out that capitalism is why they currently don't have food. Brazil is a major food producer and there is zero excuse for anybody in the nation going hungry, ever. Incidentally, capitalism necessitates that a number of people stay unemployed. "By far our problems here aren't the companies. Like, not even close to being. Circle that square for me." If you think your problem is with the government, remember that you have a capitalist government. "The number is correct, it's 800 million for the year of 2022, and that's following an annual steady decrease in world hunger since the industrial revolution." This is like hand-writing a mathematical solution and smugly telling me that it's better than using a calculator. So you're telling me that we've slowly been improving since pre-industrial society? Cool! Still doesn't change the fact that hundreds of millions of people died when we had an actual solution we could have used. As for 'extreme poverty', by carefully defining what is and isn't extreme you can play with numbers and get any result that you want. So more people earn $2 a day? And I'm supposed to accept that as a success, am I? Two dollars? What's worse is that poverty and malnutrition are increasing in some of the richest nations on earth, how does the USA and UK explain a sharp increase in homeless and hungry people? " but I never said those were the only times people were miserable there." You don't want to play this game, I don't think I could fit the number of famines under capitalism in a single comment. Look at how many people died in India alone for example. Now add Bangladesh, Ireland, Yemen, Ethiopia, Kenya, etc etc "Given that thanks to capitalism, world hunger is on a steady decline with some hick ups here and there, I much prefer this system over guaranteed social failure." One small final point: The famines of the USSR and China were a result of there genuinely not being enough food. You can blame this on whatever you want. The famines of capitalism? Somehow occur even when there is surplus food. Capitalism is the only system where people starve as unimaginable quantities of food sail past them.
    1
  28.  @vitre69  " it would be plainly obvious that we have major problems with distribution because we do it exclusively by roads, and said roads break down a lot due to the hot climate. Not to mention its 10x worse to do that in the middle of a rain forest. So no, you are just making blank accusations to try to substantiate your claims without proper knowledge of the circunstances" Sorry but roads are what we call a 'solved problem' and you only believe they are some kind of insurmountable challenge because capitalists told you so. If we can get food into cut off cities after natural disasters, we can absolutely drive food past some potholes or landslides. "And if capitalism necessitates that people stay poor, then we are doing a shit job at keeping them poor, as seen in this report" You keep beinging up pre-industrial society as if I should care. Sorry but that was CENTURIES AGO. You might as well be telling me "Buuh, still better than the stone age!" You're aware I could make the same argument for socialism, right? "Are you grasping straws here? Because you must be to completely disregard the clear trend of improving quality of life worldwide." It's not improving in my country, or any of the countries near my country. Or any of the countries near those countries. Some nations, at the absolute rock-bottom, are seeing small improvements. But others are about to be near-uninhabitable. "That I won't assume to know because its not a country I live in" That's interesting, because you seem to have really strong opinions about China and the USSR. That's odd. I wonder why you refuse to talk about the USA and UK but not socialist countries? "We are now ignoring the humanitarian calamities of genocide and antissemitism now. Ethical." Oh, you mean the two calamities that are getting worse under capitalism? You want to talk about genocide? Okay, let's talk about how capitalist nations are more than happy to sell weapons to enable the genocide of the Yemeni people. Or Palestine. Let's talk about what happened in Myanmar. And that's just recently! We can go back decades if you want! Australia, the USA, Canada, Kenya, India.. Like I said before, you don't want to play this game. The death toll can't even be compared. As for antisemitism, which side is shooting up the synagogues again? Because it isn't left-wingers. "I mean, that's what I take from what you said. We don't have shortages under capitalism. And that's correct." This is utterly inhuman. Not only are you unashamed that piles of food are left to rot while people die off in the millions, you actively celebrate it. You only care if the food is produced, not that people are fed. And when called out on it, you dance around bleating "oh but it was worse 200 years ago! Suck it up, Somalians! You made $2.10 today! Lalala!" Beyond redemption, honestly I don't even know what to say to you.
    1
  29.  @vitre69  "It's a logistical problem so big in our country we actually have one of the highest costs for distribution of goods due to lack of efficiency" Assuming there's just no way to deal with this from a civil engineering perspective, I know for a fact that there are entire classes of vehicle designed for exactly this. The technology exists, the science is done. What capitalism lacks is a profit incentive to actually do it. "My brother in christ, that was a graph showing everything POST industrial rev up to modern day" Missing the point, you're still coming at me with 19th century data. "I come to you again asking for sources. I bring you a whole lot of data from trusted sources and you wish me to take you seriously when you spit stuff because "trust me bro"?" You want a source on...climate change? Nah. We're not doing that. "Plus, weren't we talking about poor people? Since when do communists care for first world countries getting less rich" Poor countries are poor BECAUSE of rich countries, and not even to the benefit of the citizens of rich countries. I know you want me to stick to my own nation only but that's not happening, this is a global thing. "Do tell me, were any of those done by a market or a government?" Hmm good question, let me check the stock values of weapon manufacturers over the past 20 years and OH WELL WHAT DO YOU KNOW "Capitalism is an economic system, its just a system to regulate the production of value and distribution of goods. Communism, on the other hand, is a political system" I know this isn't your first language, but I also know this shit wouldn't fly in Portuguese either. You don't know what you're talking about. "No country is just capitalist, but every communist country is just communist " Double standard, I don't even need to respond to this. "It was the religious fundamentalists of a theocratic country" Idk if the USA is theocratic just yet " There are more ideologies than just left or right." The thing about a bimodal model is that by definition this can't be true. "I am unashamed that said food pile is even possible to be produced and is feeding more and more people yearly." This is pure cope on your part. You can't face up to the fact that we have the ability to feed people now, and we're not doing it. So long as the number of hungry people decreases, you call this a victory (apparently it doesn't matter if it decreases because they all died I guess)
    1
  30. Prices went up because of price gouging, Trevor
    1
  31. " Look at people who live minus temperatures they don't go out with much more insulation than us british do in winter" This is completely false, I've been to those countries and not only do they wear more clothing, their homes are warmer than ours.
    1
  32.  @JJShurte  This isn't true, Peterson and Rowling didn't just write books lmao They have bad reputations because they both joined a crusade against the LGBT community What did Marx do? Spend Engel's money? Oh noooooo, such a baaaad maaaann (oh btw, you realise we can all see you're subscribed to white nationalists and fascists right? Weird how genocidal maniacs get a pass, but economists don't ahahahahah)
    1
  33.  @JJShurte  If you think Marx is an extremist...it's because you're an extremist. That's the long and short of it!
    1
  34. Statistically speaking this isn't correct.
    1
  35.  @NEMOfishZ92  We could if there were any
    1
  36.  @NEMOfishZ92  Why do you hate him lol
    1
  37. You're whining about 'expense' when nationalisation is still cheaper than what we got! Classic boomer, brain completely fried from all the four-star
    1
  38.  @robandsharonseddon-smith5216  Being rude has nothing to do with education, what are you mumbling about? And if you want polite conversation, consider addressing people politely first. "Nationalised industries fail time and time again principally because the real people involved (as opposed to the ideal actors the Guardianistas imagine exist) have no skin in the game and tend to do the bare minimum" That's the status quo you're describing. That's what's happening now. " The result is bloated wage bills and low productivity" That's now! That's the privatised system you're complaining about! "High consumer prices are also characteristic of Nationalised industries" Were you paying over 40p per Kwh in the old days? You were not. Talking shite. "one of the many reasons why the sale of these was so popular at the time - prices fell in real terms and the service improved" Are you just writing this from another part of the world or something? Have you visited the UK in the past decade? We have some of the highest energy prices there are! The prices have not fallen! They have risen!
    1
  39. Not sure tom's a liberal m8
    1
  40. This is a complete and total lie, at no point in history were the unions 'crushing the economy'. There were strikes. But unions are not to blame for strikes, ever. You know how bad things have to get before you can get 50% of a workforce to agree to stop being paid so they can strike? Pretty bad! And that's down to management.
    1
  41. The far-right have won so conclusively in the UK that even their main rivals are refusing to challenge them on policy. We will not be voting our way out of this. We could all go on strike until they agree to stop killing us, hopefully something along those lines happens before they make striking illegal. Until then I recommend you involve yourself with the organisation of workers, plenty of groups out there atm
    1
  42. My bills prove that the price is going up, not down
    1
  43.  @sebastiankaczmarek635  Yes, easily Private companies increased their prices
    1
  44.  @sebastiankaczmarek635  We had the highest rate of price increase and still today have some of the highest prices in the world It is also still increasing
    1
  45. "the real solution is the decentralization of energy, so that everyone could create their own energy and even sell it" Your 'solution' is for everybody to run a generator in their garden? The least efficient and most expensive way to generate energy? Not to mention the pollution, but have you any idea what a logistical nightmare that would be? How are hospitals supposed to guarantee they get enough petrol to constantly run? They'd need an endless convoy of tankers constantly driving up and down the roads! And about selling energy - it would be a regulatory nightmare. Things start exploding if you mix voltages and frequencies incorrectly.
    1
  46. " how immediately corrupt such a monopolisation to such few individuals ALWAYS causes." You're describing the status quo, genius
    1
  47. Private companies would have raised prices anyway, because this is price gouging and not a supply issue
    1
  48.  @CurtisRouse-  Labour will likely win the next election, and they will not be fixing any of this. Nor would the Liberal Democrats if they somehow won. This isn't a party-political issue. (Although the tories are all evil I am in full agreement)
    1
  49.  @CurtisRouse-  Correct. But we'll never know how many years it will actually take, because Labour will not be attempting to fix any of it. They have already committed to freezing prices at their current record highs, to protect their corporate donors.
    1
  50.  @CurtisRouse-  Rachel Reeves seems to be saying it on twitter on her own account, and she's fairly high up in the organisation atm
    1