I think you need to learn some economics. (over)Simple example: A two person market, 10kwh of non-rewables at 10p/kwh and 10kwh of renewables at 12p/kwh. Two customers, each buying 10 kwh Without the ability to chose, each customer would pay 11p per kwh. If I choose to buy the more expensive renewable energy at 12p per kwh, the other person only has to pay 10p per kwh. Now clearly with the amount of electricity I'm buying and the size of the UK electricity market, the effect of my individual choice is negligible. There are however hundreds of thousands of people switching to all renewable plans.
Nope, that would be you. First, you have zero price making power. Your behaviour is irrelevant. Second, we are referring to- at best- oligopoly (although some may argue that its tacit collusion and a lack of price competition because of failures in regulation). There will be price discrimination behaviour designed to maximise profit. There is no means to argue that greater profit from your preening behaviour will be passed on to other consumers. Indeed, given game theory analysis, we'd expect your behaviour to have no effect at all. To argue that you're reducing fuel poverty is naivety run amok. It has no reference to economic sense.
I admin that my steps of reducing my energy consumption and choosing a renewables supplier would have a miniscule effect but at least I'm taking practical steps today as opposed to just hoping that my preferred political party will be elected to power and their policies will actually reduce fuel poverty. Again, what steps are you personally taking today to reduce fuel poverty ?
Sorry, but you're talking bobbins. Your behaviour has ZERO effect. What you've done is two fold. First, pretended otherwise. Second, got basic economics completely wrong. Perhaps that's why New Labour continued to support privatisation? Like you, they got basic economics completely wrong.
That's your assertion. Meanwhile the price of renewable energy is dropping as it's becoming mainstream. Meanwhile, class warrior, what steps are you taking today to address poverty in a practical way - as opposed to hoping that your preferred party is returned to government and that their policies are actually effective in reducing fuel poverty ?
No, it's economics. Why do you think the industry is regulated? Bit bleedin obvious really. You tried to pitch it as a simple supply and demand issue. That wouldn't even make sense if we had perfect competition, as you have no price making power. I refer to the obvious. These issues cannot be solved by middle class preening. They will be solved through transformation of the industry. Regulation is unlikely to be enough, thus deriving an economic argument for nationalisation.
I'll take that as you're doing precisely nothing practical at the moment then to reduce fuel poverty. Instead, you're hoping that Labour will get elected (IMO the more of Jeremy Corbyn's agenda that gets to be party policy the less likely that becomes - but that's just a personal opinion), and that Labour's policies will be effective in reducing fuel poverty. edited to add.... It's the politics of the Student Union all over again. Instead of taking practical steps to protest about the removal of the right to claim housing benefit, the major thrust of their activity was to boycott the Student Union shop because they stocked Rowntree's Fruit Pastilles.
You're not doing anything practical. You just think you are. That's fair enough of course. From the bubble to away with the fairies, that's your right. Eliminating fuel poverty requires industry level change. That couldn't come with New Labour mind you, as they only pished about around the edges.
Ah yes, you're tackling fuel poverty head-on by developing a series of policies which, if the party is elected, and if the policies are effective may start to address the problem whilst at the same time insulting and ridiculing those people who are taking small, but concrete, steps to address the issue by engaging directly in the market. That's one of the reasons why I think that Jeremy Corbyn is a poor leader of the Labour Party, and a terrible leader of the opposition - his methods haven't progressed from the sixth-form common room.
A pitiful reply, merely illustrating that basic economics is beyond you. The reason why your preening is irrelevant is because of market structure. The suppliers have market power and, through oligopoly, their abnormal profits are protected. Now you can try and reduce the worst elements of profiteering via regulation. However, the optimal response is to treat energy in terms of public good criteria. Its through nationalisation, and avoiding market failure, that you eliminate social ills. Amusing that you blubber about 6th forms when your position is purely based on living in a bubble. Try economics!
....and yet when the means of electricity generation was publicly owned, fuel poverty was still a *thing* The idea that public ownership will somehow make energy more affordable is questionable in my opinion and in any case, seems to be tackling the issue from the wrong end if the intent is to reduce overall spend on energy and tackle the effects of global warming. I don't know where you get the idea that I live in a bubble but if it helps you sleep at night simply to demonise anyone who disagrees with you, have fun
Happy for you to refer to statistics on fuel poverty then and how it compared. Good luck! As I said, you clearly do not understand the consequences of market failure and the inflated prices derived through oligopoly/monopoly. First, you made the bogus claim that you were reducing fuel costs for others. Second, you made the bogus claim that basic economics supported that unsupportable opinion.
You clearly consider the domestic electricity supply market in the UK to be a failed market. Only if you you use your idiosyncratic view of the UK domestic electricity supply market. Meanwhile, in the real world market forces are at work.
It is, by definition. You again show that you don't understand basic economics. So you're going to pretend that concepts such as oligopoly and monopoly are irrelevant? New Labour strikes again!
No, I don't "understand" Corbynomics - or more specifically disagree with the far left's assertion that everything is better if it's nationalised in the same way that I disagree with the right's assertion that the private sector is always more efficient than the public sector. The UK electricity supply industry is certainly not a monopoly and innovations over the last couple of decades have moved it away from being an oligopoly. On the other hand, a nationalised power industry is a monopoly with all the disadvantages (and benefits) that a monopoly brings.
Churlish! Market failure is associated with economic power associated with oligopoly/monopoly, making it distinct from perfect competition and monopsonistic competition. That you don't know that, after having the bubble moment to say 'its basic economics', is revealing. You honestly think the industry is competitive? Wow, New Labour strikes again! Perhaps you'd like to refer to a study that supports that view? Surely Chris Leslie has written a piece for you? You probably watch the meerkats halfway through The Great British Bakeoff and think "ain't competition grand"...
And yet here we are with a domestic electricity supply market which offers competition for those willing and able to engage with the market. Your preferred alternative is a government-owned monopoly Are you somehow doubting that a nationalised electricity supply industry would be anything other than a monopoly ? Are you now suggesting that the UK insurance market is also rigged ?
That utilities, given those public good attributes, should be in the public sector is just economic sense. I appreciate you won't appreciate that mind you, given your ridiculous comments on competition.
Where there is no scope for competition, or where competition has to be artificially created then I agree with you - the rail industry and water industry are prime examples. On the other hand, the nature of the electricity industry means that there is plenty of opportunity for competition for generators and for domestic and industrial suppliers. It also makes sense to have a single grid for the distribution. Likewise with telecoms, although with telecoms technology is rapidly removing the requirement for a shared distribution network.
You're referring to all industries where market failure occurs, by definition. You've chosen to pick and choose to suit your bubble. Last chance to refer to just one study that celebrates competition in the electricity industry.
Celebrates ? If a study celebrates something then it's not a good study IMO - it should consider things impartially.
Petty attempt at dodge. You made the claim, despite it being inconsistent with theory of the firm. Can you support it with any evidence at all?
In northern climates heat-pumps always work in winter because the earth's heat below ground remains constant regardless of the air-temperature. Which is not the case of air-sourced conditioners in winter. But all that is changing once again with PV-cell electricity (transformed into heat) that depends upon a sufficient quantity of sun-shiny days particularly in winter ...
