Fixing the Energy Price Crisis

Gary takes a moment out (during the July 19th Heatwave) to explain the current governments approach to "fixing" the energy price crisis. He points out how this approach helps the rich and hinders the poor & gives an alternate plan that would help to also fix wealth inequality
SUBSCRIBE, SHARE & START A CONVERSATION
SOCIAL MEDIA:
WEBSITE - www.wealtheconomics.org
TWITTER - @garyseconomics - / garyseconomics
FACEBOOK - @garyseconomics - / garyseconomics
INSTAGRAM - @garyseconomics - / garyseconomics
TIKTOK - @garyseconomics - www.tiktok.com/@garyseconomic...
KZbin - @garyseconomics - / @garyseconomics
Performed by Gary Stevenson
GARYSECONOMICS
Produced by Simran Mohan
MOHAN MEDIA

[@Pikey4321]

Huge penny drop moment watching this, thank you for explaining Gary. Makes so much sense. I always liked what the French are doing by locking the rise at 4%, but this feels like a more progressive idea. Of course, there will also be poorer families that are also high energy users, i.e. disabilities, so you may need to offer extra help for particular circumstances too.

[@vman2kay]

This just made me realise, my provider (Octopus Energy) has started a scheme to reduce usage during peak periods where you can get paid a small amount, if you manage to use less. Now as you said, rich people probably wouldn't give a toss about saving energy during that peak period, as the reward is nothing to them. However poorer families will most likely sign up and participate as the savings (only £100 max over a few months really, if you manage to use less during that period) aren't neglible to them. So effectively the poorer families end up adjusting their habits whilst the rich do F-all. Pretty sad but eye opening now you've mentioned the difference.

[@iainzo7]

Your content is incredible. Keep up the good work. Mad you're not bigger.

[@garyseconomics]

Thanks Bob!

[@WSmith_1984]

@bredbury I've been recommending Gary to Russell, I think he'll get a chance to spread his message on that show soon...

[@SouxieSu1]

UBI also helps with increasing job losses due to the automation of the work place. We are still living with the idea of the morality of work which is why we have so many non-jobs. What do you think about how Spain is handling the crisis? They are now taxing the rich and big business. Which economy do you think is moving in the right direction? I think this would be a good discussion as it helps people visualise how things can change. Thanks for the great work

[@glowwurm9365]

I’m always stunned how housing remains outside of inflation measurements, it’s the single biggest expensive for a person and rises have run rampant for… well my entire adult life.

[@garyseconomics]

Ye it's an interesting one. Lots of economists have argued with me that rising housing prices are not relevant to living standards. They all own property in the family, of course....

[@glowwurm9365]

@@garyseconomics How one can ignore the cost of rent and mortgages in relation to the cost of living beggars belief. It’s the single biggest determinate in regards to wealth inequality and in real terms has had the largest impact on ppls outgoings.

[@newtonswig]

@@garyseconomics You should do a video about this. Housing is kept out of CPI because the goal of keeping CPI low is to give a good real rate of return on assets for people with power. If CPI was about the expenses of ordinary people, you know it would be in there. The fact that it isn’t shouldn’t surprise anybody- the whole financial system is built on winning the race between assets and consumption (if you get me). The best you can say is it’s part of the flawed trickle down model you talk about.

[@WSmith_1984]

@@glowwurm9365 it's all part of the scam.... why include things that actually matter, they are very nearly always throwing out cooked numbers, revision here and there, now the fed are using a different calculation going forward from February I believe.... it's a bit and switch.

[@WSmith_1984]

@@newtonswig nailed it my friend.

[@robCaB]

See also the daily hate mail headline, "More than £60 a month will be cut from energy bills through winter under the Government’s cost-of-living support package." Which is using UK tax payers money to give straight to the energy companies who are currently making record profits. This government works for the billionaires, not for you or I.

[@waynecartwright7276]

check out who are directors of Centrica

[@mdhazeldine]

This is a really interesting idea. What if we had a stepped energy consumption tax? I.e. those who use minimal energy pay nothing, but then beyond a certain point, the tax kicks in, and then it gets stepped up progressively the more you use? That would help the poorest and hurt the richest.

[@annabelcleare138]

Brilliant idea! 👍

[@darriendastar3941]

Wow! This was good. There's something really life-affirming about being challenged and made to think first thing on a Sunday morning. Many many thanks for doing this.

[@almafrith778]

Another great analysis Gary. It's good to hear forward-thinking ideas that can if, put forward would make for a better society. However, the people in power would need a major brain implant to implement such ideas.

[@bigdaz7272]

Interesting. But you have to tackle the Private Energy Monopolies who are clearly using their position to extort people for an "essential" service. It is clearly more than price gouging and imho a genuine form of extortion given that Heating, Energy and Water are essentials for life.

[@duckweedy]

Agree as those at the top of the energy providers are the super rich and as prices rise get richer so have to put some sort of price cap or super-tax to slow that down too.

[@Adamisthechizzle]

I just subscribed and started tuning in. Your content gives me hope in what feels like a hopeless situation. Our societal problems run deeper than finance, but if we can get improve here at least there's a fighting chance to weather the impending storm.

[@mooremoneymakin]

Comparing a policy to UBI is such a great way of thinking about it 👍

[@fjpcad]

You make soo much sense mate

[@cheryllcooper]

Wow I needed this video. You make so much sense. Thank you

[@Humanity101-zp4sq]

You are absolutely correct Gary. Only one obvious and ideal energy pricing policy. It has two elements, firstly energy must be priced progressively in proportion to consumption, without standing charge. The first few kWhrs per person could even be free! This policy would disincentivise greed and profligacy, and also ensure that everyone's universal basic need is met. It would also help to achieve 'net zero' by discouraging overuse and waste. Data already exists to determine the 'minimum energy requirement' per person. The second element of the policy would recognise the necessity of continuous energy production in a grid system. It used to be called 'Economy 7', energy is priced more competitively when demand is low ie. at night. Wealthy people wishing to save would be incentivised to invest in electricity storage capacity (helping to build resilience into the power grid), and people with legitimate additional medical need (ie. ventilation or dialysis equipment) could be provided with storage capacity free of charge. Your video is a year old Gary. This is a 'no brainer' area to concentrate your efforts on. No one can argue against apolitical common sense.

[@GreenLarsen]

Great explanation Only point I'd like to ad is about (private) energy companies profit. I'd argue that energy is a basic utility and therefore cant be allowed to have extreme profit margins. So some kind of max on the profit (or honestly, some kind of nationalization) is imo also needed.

[@Skylark_Jones]

As usual great video. If you can convince a government that represents millionaires of your sound logic, I'll take my hat off to you!

[@CloudhoundCoUk]

Thank you Gary another fabulous informative video. Brilliant.

[@juliewake4585]

Oh god it’s so wonderful to hear someone from an ordinary background who really knows what he’s talking about, unlike the fools in the tv and radio who say the same things over and over again, using soundbites constantly to persuade everyone that they know what they’re talking about. Thanks Gary.

[@rogerdines6244]

I write this after the energy price cap has been fixed, which, as you point out, benefits the rich far more than the poor, but also, does nothing to limit consumption by those that can afford it, which is little more than madness when supply of fuel is seriously constrained. In addition, the present Government, perfectly correctly in my view, is adamant that Ukraine must be supported. Other countries in Europe will have their energy supplies constrained much more than we will, and that constraint may put the alliance against Putin under strain. To the extent that we can save fuel, that fuel is available to ease the pressure on those suffering more in Europe, and, therefore, ease such strains as the alliance against Putin may come under. Not only, therefore, is the policy immoral because it unnecessarily benefits the rich more than the poor, it is also foolish, because it puts the alliance against Putin under more strain than is necessary.

[@Kaivalaginiviti]

Im so glad i found your channel, its really encouraging, more MPs need to see this, they might see a way to actually help, if they want to that is! If we removed the insane standing charges and increased charge rates/tax on energy usage over a certain threshold, then the poorer would be even better off and it would be sellable as an idea on the basis of reducing prices and subsidising for the poorer and taxing any over use 👍

[@auntsally7790]

Agreed the media treat this as a very simplistic problem. Something I never thought of that was highlighted recently, hospital equipment, farming and manufacturing.

[@royloveday4350]

Once again its great to have a better perspective. Really appreciate being reminded with context that raising NI is effectively a tax increase on working people only. Where energy is concerned its entirely true that working people could turn a lump sum into energy saving measures in their homes. What do working people do if they dont own their own homes? If I add value to a rented property I'll end up paying more for it? It seems to me we are going to have to ask landlords to insulate and improve their properties and probably provide a lot of the cash needed to get that done?

[@BeccaAl]

Sun’s out… Thanks Gary, another great explanation 👍🏼

[@Ianpact]

Thank you, Gary.

[@judithfarrimond-sheddon184]

I can't love this video enough ❤️

[@nigelwoods8477]

Great... truly great and informative information.

[@CPeter0912]

Oh great!! Thanks. Finally distributive economics. Brilliant.

[@GreatDiver69]

recently subbed, love hearing someone with real credentials say the same things as the the voices that keep me up at night. Energy should be taxed on an N^N scale. No penalty for using the low average, but exponentially more expensive if you've got a hungry lifestyle. Got some ideas about UBI too... but saving them for my manifesto

[@SkeletonDrums1]

Mate, i honestly think that you should be chief economist for the next government!

[@quokkapirquish6825]

My business uses £3000 a month in electricity, when prices double, my prices will have to go up and then I’m worried that people won’t be able to afford to pay more, it’s a nightmare, I worry for my future.

[@sedgieroobets]

Such a good video. Great insights and so well explained.

[@sedgieroobets]

Love the idea of using UBI as a kind of baseline against which to compare any policy: if a policy is disproportionately benefitting the rich compared to UBI we shouldn't be doing it!

[@amandam480]

Again a very good video. So true

[@coolrun89]

Gary's economics for Chancellor of Exchequer

[@waynecartwright7276]

my standing charge has gone up 250% that's disproportionately hurting low users too. Lowering energy prices by subsidy is just dept for everyone going to energy generators that have ensured that its a sellers market. They are closing more power stations than are coming online so prices will stay high as no competition.

[@sardav160479]

I was ill because of the heat wave as I couldn't cool my flat, I'm on disability benefits I've already made the decision to turn my freezer off so can't store food

[@florian-andreicsolsim652]

I would also couple this with a requirement that all new housing is built with passivehaus certification (your house uses as much energy as it produces) to have low or no bills. Canada does this already, in their step code which has a deadline in a few years time. From that deadline, all houses have to built to that standard. Not to mention if you generate renewable energy in BC, the energy company there credits you back, effectively reducing your energy bills. Also work could be done in retrofitting existent housing stock to reach as high energy efficiency as possible. It seems that solving wealth inequality and net zero go hand in hand...

[@fjpcad]

You also price per usage

[@facelessvaper]

A revisit of this giving energy profits & a UBI cover would be interesting in hearing your thoughts.👍

[@tlvision1478]

Would be interested in a video on UBI. How is UBI different from recent Covid furlough payments while people couldn't work. You say that made the rich richer. So why wouldn't UBI also just make the rich richer?

[@mikehinford]

The UBI discussion is interesting. You talked about a policy being better than UBI if the poor gain more. A lot of UBI proposals include increases tax (wealth tax, VAT, income tax) etc. which would mean the rich pay more in tax. So you could see UBI as actually being better for the poor, and not just neutral. I suppose it depends on if you see that tax policy as being part of UBI or not. I do, but I can see why some people don't.

[@mikehinford]

And, I think the solution you said about taxing energy more, and then giving it to the poor, is similar to UBI, in that the effect would be the same. And there's an admin cost associated with giving the money to the poor because you have to means test. Someone has to work out who qualifies. There is no means testing required for UBI, so it's more efficient.

[@ForAllLifesAdventures]

A question, are you for the UBI as a policy?

[@anisdesai4692]

The energy companies have more than tripled in profits. Shell and BP recorded twice the profits in a 3 month period in relation to what they earned per annum before and during covid.

[@derekgoffin5807]

It sounds good, to simplify you could return the money as UBI. however taxing energy must include electricity, gas, heating fuel petrol, diesel or the rich and others will get round it. That puts up prices to industry even more and they must have a much more complicated support subsidy to continue in business,

[@KokowaSarunoKuniDesu]

I think you missed the point about the specific way in which the energy market is broken: it guarantees a cost plus profit to the *highest* price generation source, meaning that lower priced/more efficient energy sources (like wind , solar, hydro) are actually making enormously more profit. It would surely be better to have differential pricing of the different generation sources and aggregate them into consumers' bills: so if we are getting 50% from renewables and 50% from gas generation, the gas generated electricity would be charged at the current and projected eye-watering prices, while the renewables would be charged at about 1/9. So our bills wouldn't triple, they would merely double. Of course those of us who signed up with Octopus for "clean energy" have a compelling argument that we shouldn't be subsidizing those who didn't care to do so. Notwithstanding, the differential pricing strategy would surely incentivize a pretty rapid build-out of renewables to cover a much greater percentage of the market.

[@JohnnyMotel99]

How true is it that our energy price is fixed to be pitched at whatever price is needed to bring the most expensive producer into the grid to complete the necessary base load? This is a quote from Will Hutton. He suggests that energy should be priced to an average and the high cost producers given gov loans.

[@tomhermens7698]

Energy priced could be tabled. Small users(low on the table) pay less and the big users (high or top of the table) pay far more proportionally.

[@owenbrown6245]

This guy needs to step up, take a position with the Labour party as try and influence things from a position of power, rather than just make videos on youtube about it. Agree with everthing he says.

[@littletommyl]

Is it time for citizen basic energy credits so every person in UK receives basic credits enough to keep average person warm through winter. Paid for by Tax on Energy

[@garyseconomics]

Unfortunately the governments approach won't work: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fGG3nZJne6hph7c

[@tr1sh2tom]

When will you run for Parliament?

[@caparn100]

The rich could just be taxed more and the revenue reallocated to the poor, I think that would solve all the issues you mention in this video.

[@garyseconomics]

Well, yes, this I would also support.

[@alan_davis]

I like the fact that this doesn't overtly require the "tax the rich" rhetoric. (I'm not against it, but a first step of not giving the rich more handouts than the poor would be welcome.)

[@elementour]

I'm definitely going to vote for the political party with a policy like you suggested.....oh no there isn't one.

[@charliearmour1628]

Wow.

[@gedofgont1006]

Why not levy taxes on all resource usage, not just energy consumption? The more you use, the more you pay. It strikes me this is a better way to promote a fairer, more equal, society than taxing income, or property. It would foster a kind of natural conservationism, too.

[@charliestephenson2950]

Hi Gary, are you saying that for most people, the cost of energy isn’t the problem, but the inability to afford to pay these new prices is the problem, so hence we should create income redistribution policies to help people through this moment and hope energy prices come down in not too distant future? Do you think prices will come down? It would be interesting to understand the historical context of energy prices and how today compares. Also sounds like you wouldn’t be a fan of Labour’s policy to cap energy bills, as that will disproportionately help the rich?

[@hornj999]

The problem with this solution is that is too many exceptions to this rule, like what about people on life support machines at home, which need lots of energy to run, what about people in much colder parts of the UK which need boilers most of the year nearly all the time, steel manufacturers etc. Also I personally don't believe in the grand scheme of things, the rich are using big % of the energy as total of the yearly output in the UK. We still need complete energy independence in the UK and renewable energy so we bring down energy costs for everyone. Although I do agree some level energy consumption to be taxable might make sense. Whether it will actually make a lot of difference I'm not so sure. Also I suspect any tax policy like this will have loopholes which will get abused by the rich.

[@bop98png]

How about weighting an energy tax based on wealth (rather than only income)?

[@RanjitSingh-em7lx]

Hi Gary another great video. One thing I don't quite get is when you say that all the printed money went to the rich and this causes inflation. How does the rich getting all that money lead to inflation? Sorry if this is a stupid question but I don't understand.

[@RanjitSingh-em7lx]

@@Vroomfondle1066 wow thank you very much. I now understand. Thank you once again.

[@Vroomfondle1066]

@@RanjitSingh-em7lx That's my understanding of Gary's basic message. There's no doubt more detail and nuance than that, and there are arguments floating around that contradict his analysis, but economics is both a very subjective and highly politicised field (despite what many economists may claim to the contrary)

[@caparn100]

The M2 money supply is closely linked to long term inflation. This has increased by 25% over the course of the pandemic. So I would expect from that there will be a total inflation of 25% due to the money printing during the pandemic.

[@leezowers3964]

Also the tax could ratchet - the more you use the more you pay with some safeguarding for a lot of people have no choice cos of terrible housing

[@gdgisa2884]

We can't compare anything with UBI because we don't have it. It's comparing apples with unicorns. In your opinion the wages should go up. Or not?

[@alan_davis]

You don't have the ability to think? If you can compare a banana and an apple without owning either then you can compare UBI with any policy.

[@leomay4240]

How would you implement a policy of giving money only to the poor during a short term energy price increase? Can anyone suggest a mechanism that avoids giving the same amount to wealthy individuals? I cant see a way

[@LionPaw.Rastafan]

there is no scarcity of energy supply in the UK. it is an artificial market. public services need to be in public hands. energy provision not least.

[@Stockaholics]

The rich in any society are a marginal amount of overall energy demand because they are a marginal fraction of the population. I don't at all agree with your point #1. Inflation is always measured in 2 things: Increase in currency units vs total supply of goods and services. The "rich" generally have little to do with either of those. Unfortunately I think the type of inflation also matters as all currencies are not created equal. My currency, the Dollar in the United States, tends to impact global demand in ways that other currencies do not. I made a video on this on my channel recently if you are interested Gary. Wish you the best across the pond!

[@BigHenFor]

Lol. That logic is why we are where we are.

[@Stockaholics]

@@BigHenFor It's not logic, it's factual. Scapegoating rich people does not change the monetary system and the economics in a state.

[@Stockaholics]

@@Vroomfondle1066 k

[@silent6142]

The UBI will happen only when we have Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC ). In doing this the government will be able to control how a person spends their money (since the digital currency is programable) Control control control..

[@silent6142]

@@Vroomfondle1066 CBDC gives total control to the government as Digital currency is programmable. With global UBI will mean we are almost fully automated and no jobs. The governments will want to keep control of the masses, what better way than controlling how you spend your income that they give you or suspend if they wish.

[@silent6142]

@@Vroomfondle1066 Funny how Elon Musk has alot to say about it. I doubt he ever heard of the term benefit. UBI stands for unified basic income that's far removed from the term benefit and applies to everyone. The world economic forum has detailed info on UBI.

[@alan_davis]

Tin hats for sale, £39.99.

[@Vroomfondle1066]

@@alan_davis cheap at the price!

[@Vroomfondle1066]

@@silent6142 True, but Musk is a rich bell-end and the WEF chat all kinds of shit - just because something would make an excellent dystopia sci-fi plot, doesn't mean its really going to happen. That said, you are right insofar as we need to avoid backing into a surveillance state based on politically orthodoxy.

[@dugandav1]

Great idea, however, wealth/money is generated from business. What businesses need in order to compete is an equal playing field or a competitive advantage not the extortionate price of energy in this country Pay.

[@skippy6462]

Unfortunately because we don't believe or think that there's reasonable financial support or even decent health care people hord money. Relatives (in my past 80's, 90's) used to buy diamonds etc with their bonus money and put it in their safe. Shows they didn't really need that extra money but they kept it for just in case. If we had a universal income and decent health care, old age provision etc we might not feel the need to keep so much money x

[@virtualunreality8326]

Brilliant video and makes perfect sense. I like that idea. Wealth isn't polarised between rich and poor though. There are some who are poor, some who are rich and lots of others in the middle. Personally I don't think it matters which party is in power - they all seem to be incredibly wealthy.

[@BonnieMan42]

The idea of increasing energy tax and providing a flat payment to all households to compensate seems like a great idea, however how would businesses be protected, especially SMEs?

[@MrRobsroom]

An interesting comment in that it reflects a now widely held belief that businesses should be ‘protected’.

[@BonnieMan42]

@@MrRobsroom I'm thinking more about smaller businesses/employers who may not be able to absorb the impact of increased energy tax. I'm not advocating that businesses need protection per se, I'm simply a layman who is curious about the wider implications of what is being proposed here. I like the idea but it seems too good to be true.

[@alan_davis]

I think that is a separate issue (clearly connected in terms of cause, but you can choose to solve one this way and the other one another way).

[@leezowers3964]

How about this but the first 100 or so a month is free as way of decommodifying energy? Energy is a basic need fundamental to all we do.

[@alan_davis]

You could do that, but it would come with a reduction in benefits / increase in taxes so I'm not sure the net effect is different. I like the concept though (at the least would stop the daily heil suggesting the poor would "spend it on booze and fags")

[@youtubeaccount2302]

This is a really smart idea, but can you imagine a political party proposing raising a tax on energy in the current climate? They’d be lynched. People need to be educated by the media so they would be able to see and understand the logic in this.

[@marizuokereke7347]

I appreciate that this video wasn't solely advocatiyolng UBI but in the UK, with its totally deregulated property market, I don't understands why UBI wouldn't just inflate the housing market? I don't understand why a £2k UBI wouldn't just cause an annual rental increase of £2k or property prices to go up so that the £2k is taken up by the mortgage.

[@BigHenFor]

UBI wouldn't increase demand. Why would it? The amount being suggested for UBI wouldnt amount to a deposit on a home. So, landlords might try to increase rent prices, but they may find that that's a zero sum game.

[@harribo54321]

Great video, Gary . I really struggle with the question of whether the people in power, are: 1. Just stupid 2. Think they have a birth-right to privilege When you're explaining how these policies are designed to channel money to the rich, I start to think it must be number 2. Also, I know people who are from the upper class and they seem to have this sense that they are somehow entitled to privilege. But then I look at the Tory politicians and can't for a second think they're clever enough to be scheming in this way. Because I think you're probably right, Gary, about what you said in another video that the actual smart people are in the City working behind the scenes but not allowed to talk

[@JohnnyMotel99]

I think it's more about pleasing their masters, the corporations

[@harribo54321]

@@JohnnyMotel99 so maybe they're just the drones and don't really think for themselves

[@marcelbartha768]

Consum of energy is not only domestic mr Gary.

[@marcelbartha768]

Consumption

[@garyseconomics]

It's not, but the receipts from the tax could be distributed domestically, so it could provide a considerable source of income for UK households.

[@b00ts4ndc4ts]

I think that the time for talking about this has past and it's now time for direct action.

[@Adamb87]

Make tax avoidance illegal , any corporation that avoids tax MUST be banned from our economy permanently , The consequences must be severe for tax avoidance to make it not worth doing , banning a corporation which will be replaced with one that wants to benefit from the U.K. market and pays tax fully in order to get these massive benefits from operating in our economy

[@dellwright1407]

would that mean getting rid of tax relief on pensions and ISAs?

[@alan_davis]

Tax "avoidance" includes ISAs, the first few hundred pounds of savings interest, your pension and a bunch of other stuff that helps everyone. If your point is to ensure the tax laws work better then I agree, but calling for all "avoidance" to be illegal (and hence "evasion") is nuts.

[@jrisner6535]

The problem is in the energy system itself, its a technical issue that the government is failing to fix with economics

[@lauramallett3131]

Love your videos and the way your spreading awareness just wish you we’re in a political party that I could Vote for!!

[@owenbrown6245]

He also needs to add some graphics into his videos to help illustrate his point. Repeating the point over and over again isn't necessarily the best way to help people understand.

[@chuzzbot]

This type of logic is just what I've been saying for the longest time, it seems so obvious, I don't get why people miss this, it's just not part of the conversation. I'm so glad you're saying this Gary 'cos no one listens to me. You already know why eh? No not 'cos I'm an idiot, lol. I could be an idiot and wealthy and people would listen.... A starving idiot artist? You are poor for a reason mate.

[@sarahrawstron]

Interesting, but people don't like other people getting cash handouts - it drives huge resentment and demonizes the poor. I hear a friend who identifies as working class say the harshest things about people on benefits and others getting any kind of support. So what about you have a baseline average usage that has affordable prices (so the average user is just paying fair prices) and those using surplus (as you say this is the wealthiest) will have steep progressive energy prices the more they use over the baseline of what is 'reasonable use'.

[@alan_davis]

In this case you give *everyone* the cash handout, so no stigma. It works because it pays (e.g.) 50% of a poor person's electricity and 5% of a rich person's. The old age winter fuel allowance is the same - everyone old enough gets £150 (IIRC).

[@lincolndave1966able]

Energy supply and distribution should be renationalised. I am not suggesting it would automatically lead to lower energy costs but the profit it generates (roughly £11 billion in the last quarter here in the UK) would go into the states coffers and that money could be used to facilitate the insulating of homes for those who cant afford it. It could be used for R&D tax incentives into sustainable green energy, invested into reducing energy inefficiencies. Energy is of vital strategic importance and too important to leave in the hands of mercenary private profit seekers who can and do hold nations to ransome with it. The hurdle as ever is the rich own everything, they have politicians in their pockets, they call the shots, suggest the agenda, spend billions ensuring they get their way and they are not going to give an inch without one hell of a fight which at this moment in time, nobody in the numbers required or in positions of political influence is prepared to fight.

[@alan_davis]

I agree with this to a point. And the point is that it would be run by the sort of incompetent person we see throughout government... (or we'd have to pay the management team equivalent market rates to other energy companies which means they'd be vilified in this country).

[@Guildarama]

UBI like free broadband and decriminalising drug use are ideas that would help lots of people but will never happen.

[@alan_davis]

It'll happen, automation of workplaces means it *has* to happen - maybe not soon, but it will.

[@NightManAkimbo]

can you someone help by explaining how a 10% saving on energy for both rich and poor doesn’t just equate to the same amount of money proportionate to income being saved which means EQUAL benefit to the poor as well as the rich, not less? ofc i can see why making energy more expensive but giving the savings to the poor is a better solution than this so don’t need that explaining

[@alan_davis]

Well... the way you asked the question (by including "proportionate") means you're asking a different question. Proportionately they are the same % saving, but in cash terms the bigger user saves massively more. And in "income" terms you're way off, poor people might spend 25% of their money on energy, the rich guy maybe 0.25%

[@Calum_S]

The problem with making energy more expensive and then refunding the worse off is they'd have to pay the bills first, which many people won't be able to afford.

[@alan_davis]

It doesn't have to be a "refund", he didn't say that... it is just money, timing wasn't implied. Note: The winter fuel allowance works in exactly this way.

[@caparn100]

Just heard Keir Starmer's proposal which is to fix the price of energy and the government to make up the difference. This is not something I would have thought Labour would decide to do as it is regressive, it subsidises rich people with large houses more than people with small houses and it won't do anything to reduce the amount of energy consumed. The price rise is because there is less energy available because of the reduced supply from Russia. He also said it would reduce inflation, although it would reduce the headline figure of inflation wouldn't help any more than giving money to the poor to subsidise their energy bills. It would also increase long term inflation as the only cause of long term inflation is the creation of money by central banks. Subsidising energy bills will mean the government will have to borrow more money which the Bank of England will create so increasing long term inflation.

[@caparn100]

@@Vroomfondle1066 What makes you think they bought the bonds directly from the government? The scheme was set up to buy them from pension funds. It is against the law for the BoE to buy any sort of government debt directly from the government, they have to buy second hand debt using Open Market Operations (OMO).

[@caparn100]

@@Vroomfondle1066 Yes, it was £400 billion possibly more as the BoE actually purchased about £600 billion of assets over the covid19 pandemic. I hadn't realised how old this video was and initially thought your comment was about the BoE's recent intervention to buy £65 billion of guilts after Liz Truss's disastrous "mini" budget. The purchase of assets through the covid19 pandemic was exactly the same as the QE performed from 2007 onwards, i.e. the BoE just buys (with newly created money) second hand government debt using Open Market Operations.

[@Vroomfondle1066]

@@caparn100 ah, so are you saying the government issued the debt for furlough in the knowledge that the BofE would effectively buy it up through commerical bank intermediaries?

[@caparn100]

@@Vroomfondle1066 Well the BoE are supposed to be independent from the government, though the governor of the BoE is appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But I guess they did know that the BoE would purchase the equivalent amount of government debt on the Open Market.

[@alan_davis]

Did Starmer say he would cap them, or cap them _and_ subsidise the suppliers?

[@trevorsimmons3073]

we have to unite people NOW. This country is now a third world country, cant hide now . UNITE share this video

[@JamesParus]

Rich people have more possibility to save energy by modern insulation, heat pump, solar panels and electric cars.

[@markgaudie80]

Tax the high energy consumers and invest that money into cleaner self sustainable energy sources.

[@bereal6590]

Definitely I knew the policies have always been to benefit the rich. I'm a fan of a ubi that way sick people cant be condemned! Problem is if you have any suggestion that indicates a change to the staus quo you're labelled a left wind socialist or a communist! But why does anyone have a right to have so much that thousands of others suffer ✌

[@40yearoldvirgil15]

Mate you need to be in government 🤣

[@ferguscampbell5828]

OK - totally agree on the energy stuff but (and I hate to say this) aren't the 'government' doing what you're suggesting by handing out (some) actual cash to (partially targeted) people rather than dictating energy prices. Excuse me while I go and wash my mouth out ;o)

[@sheering09]

But that money is conditional, which means lines are drawn. Eg. I live on a State Pension, for which I worked and paid full NI my whole life. That is a mere £9,600 pa - way below minimum wage, let alone the minimum we all now require for the basics of life. But it's only pensioners who get Pension Credit who are getting the extra government support for the poor! But there are millions of us who only get the full Pension - and we're really struggling right now too! I won't be able to pay for the expected rise in my electricity bill in Sept AND eat! Yet, though HMRC, pensioners like me can easily be identified because we're not paying any tax!!

[@ferguscampbell5828]

@@sheering09 I know, the action being taken/promised is pathetic and shows a complete misunderstanding of the level fuel poverty millions will be forced into. My point was just that they haven't tried (so far) to reduce energy costs (if I'm wrong I'm happy to be corrected) and have been redirecting (a very small amount of) money to (some of) the poor. This seems to me like an incredibly watered down and half-arsed attempt at what this vid is suggesting. It's not good enough and it arises from all the wrong reasons anyway; but there it is. I'm absolutely up for the UBI argument and I think the vid lays down a very sensible plan for reducing energy use and supporting the more desperate in society. This government will certainly not apply it in full because they will not raise taxes on energy and they will resist redistribution (Truss especially) as it attacks the very core of their being.

[@sheering09]

I totally agree with you about the need to sort out the unbelievable prices of energy! Part of the problem has been the lack of political will to forward plan + the political clout of the big energy companies & oil/gas producers over the last 40 years. The focus on profits rather than what is best for people has been expected but socially it's shameful! And this government are not going to change that any time soon as it goes against Tory principles! Plus, many are shareholders in these companies I'm sure! We only have to look at other countries to see what's possible... But it seems that here in the uk we are being herded off a cliff... 😥

[@helenp7]

I feel totally duped. I really couldn’t see this argument coming. Brilliant, but I can see the argument being viewed with suspicion. Sounds properly socialist. I’m all for it but I wouldn’t now how to sell it.

[@icrlp0570]

TAX THE RICH THEY'RE THE ONES WITH ALL THE MONEY

[@alan_davis]

Personally I have a policy to tax social media users that comment in all-caps.

[@icrlp0570]

@@alan_davis BETWEEN US, THE RICH AND THE ALANS THERE'S HOPE YET

[@vvwalker7261]

It all sounds great until the solution... What about the manufacturing sector, high energy users, massive employers. Poorly thought out Gary! Your idea cripples industry

[@alan_davis]

Who said it has to apply to businesses, the current policy doesn't. And if it was then different industries could have different levels based on economic/ strategic need of the industry (though as I write that I can see a Tory setting his mate's business type tax to zero...)

[@4terrascorned]

Energy is a speculative asset for the rich. Look at the U.S. commodity markets. Since there deregulation in 2001. ENRON