Comments by "Tony Wilson" (@tonywilson4713) on "Energy price rises are due to regulation that favours companies, not people" video.

  1.  @george11419  NO the problem is there are good politicians. Its just that the rest of the animals in politics prey on them because for those animals there's nothing more dangerous than a person with morals or ethics who might expose them for what they are. I have a friend who was once very involved in politics while at university. What it took for him to escape with his self esteem intact is a long story. But he and his mentor were both chased out because they actually had good intentions and understood that morals and ethics matter.
    2
  2. AUSTALIAN ENGINEER HERE: 1) This is NOT just a problem for Britain its a problem across the entire developed world including Australia. 2) This is 100% THE FAULT OF ECONOMISTS This started with American Economist Milton Freidman who's view was Governments are the problem and markets are the solution. 2 of his greatest acolytes were Margret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan who famously said "Governments are NOT the solution. Governments are the problem." Milton Friedman also_"argued that a company has no social responsibility to the public or society; its only responsibility is to its shareholders."_ (Wikipedia) and to maximise profits. The argument that deregulated markets would deliver "cheaper energy with better services" IS ILLOGICAL How can anyone expect there to be any stable market for anything when the OBLIGATION of every CEO in that market is to maximise profits. EITHER they collude to raise prices and lower costs OR they fight it out Hunger Games style until a single victor emerges and then there's no competition and the victor can do whatever they like. I will grant to any economist that in the case of fast moving consumer goods where there are many suppliers, many product options and many options to buy those goods from then Freidman's ideology can work. The problem is that things like infrastructure, water and energy ARE NOT LIKE fast moving consumer goods. They are ESSENTIAL SERVICES to society and the costs involved in DO NOT HAVE a market solution. This is also why economists have made a mess of public education and public health care across the world in recent decades. Economists can't comprehend that there are these ESSENTIAL functions and services that need to be manged by government, NOT so the government can make money but so that the private sector can make money. Roads & bridges DO NOT need to make money they need to enable everyone else to move about and move stuff and make money. Education systems DO NOT need to make money they need to supply private industry with educated workers or with people who can make money and buy their goods and services. Hospitals DO NOT need to make money they need to get people healthy so they can go back to making money. In Britain right now is Hinkley Point C. It took 7 years to approve & design with a 10 year construction period. Even at higher energy prices it will take close to a decade to pay off and then start earning money. How does anyone ask a banker or CEO in the 50s to spend £40+ Billion knowing they wont be making a positive return until they are in there 70s? However if you ask the representative of a nation state to invest in something where over the next 80 years your nation shall grow and prosper from that investment then its a completely different matter. I have done the math of this and depending on how much the French STATE OWNED entity EDF can earn from Hinkley Point C then the French shall not only get their money back but PAY FOR at least 2, possibly 3 and if they work it well enough 4 power stations (8 x EPR 2 reactors in total). This is why Mr Macron could safely order 8 EPR 2 reactors because he know the British Economists are to stupid to do the math and it will NOT be the French people paying for those reactors it will be the British people paying for those reactors. So yeah right now the French people might be asking why are we paying for a power station in Britain. The answer is very simple: So it can pay for the next 2, 3 or 4 in France. AND before you ask. YES Australia is being just as stupid with its energy sector because like the British Economists advising the British Government our Economists advising our Government went to Oxford and Cambridge too. Except for the ones who went to Harvard and Yale.
    1
  3. AUSTALIAN ENGINEER HERE: Below is my overall comment but since you mentioned Maggie Thatch I thought I'd let you know. 1) This is NOT just a problem for Britain its a problem across the entire developed world including Australia. 2) This is 100% THE FAULT OF ECONOMISTS This started with American Economist Milton Freidman who's view was Governments are the problem and markets are the solution. 2 of his greatest acolytes were Margret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan who famously said "Governments are NOT the solution. Governments are the problem." Milton Friedman also_"argued that a company has no social responsibility to the public or society; its only responsibility is to its shareholders."_ (Wikipedia) and to maximise profits. The argument that deregulated markets would deliver "cheaper energy with better services" IS ILLOGICAL How can anyone expect there to be any stable market for anything when the OBLIGATION of every CEO in that market is to maximise profits. EITHER they collude to raise prices and lower costs OR they fight it out Hunger Games style until a single victor emerges and then there's no competition and the victor can do whatever they like. I will grant to any economist that in the case of fast moving consumer goods where there are many suppliers, many product options and many options to buy those goods from then Freidman's ideology can work. The problem is that things like infrastructure, water and energy ARE NOT LIKE fast moving consumer goods. They are ESSENTIAL SERVICES to society and the costs involved in DO NOT HAVE a market solution. This is also why economists have made a mess of public education and public health care across the world in recent decades. Economists can't comprehend that there are these ESSENTIAL functions and services that need to be manged by government, NOT so the government can make money but so that the private sector can make money. Roads & bridges DO NOT need to make money they need to enable everyone else to move about and move stuff and make money. Education systems DO NOT need to make money they need to supply private industry with educated workers or with people who can make money and buy their goods and services. Hospitals DO NOT need to make money they need to get people healthy so they can go back to making money. In Britain right now is Hinkley Point C. It took 7 years to approve & design with a 10 year construction period. Even at higher energy prices it will take close to a decade to pay off and then start earning money. How does anyone ask a banker or CEO in the 50s to spend £40+ Billion knowing they wont be making a positive return until they are in there 70s? However if you ask the representative of a nation state to invest in something where over the next 80 years your nation shall grow and prosper from that investment then its a completely different matter. I have done the math of this and depending on how much the French STATE OWNED entity EDF can earn from Hinkley Point C then the French shall not only get their money back but PAY FOR at least 2, possibly 3 and if they work it well enough 4 power stations (8 x EPR 2 reactors in total). This is why Mr Macron could safely order 8 EPR 2 reactors because he know the British Economists are to stupid to do the math and it will NOT be the French people paying for those reactors it will be the British people paying for those reactors. So yeah right now the French people might be asking why are we paying for a power station in Britain. The answer is very simple: So it can pay for the next 2, 3 or 4 in France. AND before you ask. YES Australia is being just as stupid with its energy sector because like the British Economists advising the British Government our Economists advising our Government went to Oxford and Cambridge too. Except for the ones who went to Harvard and Yale.
    1