There's been a bit of a theme to this morning's blogging.
Energy companies are bullying Labour to defend their monopoly profits.
Builders are saying they'll hoard their land to defend their monopoly profits.
BT has been accused of extracting monopoly profits, unaccountably.
George Osborne is defending bankers' right to live off their exploitative profits.
And regulation of tax havens is showing that abuse can be slowed, and maybe even stopped.
It's all down to two things: monopoly - that is the power to fix markets in your favour - and secrecy - which is the deliberate ability to hide that you're doing that behind the veil of opaque corporate accounting and commercial secrecy afforded to big business.
Two thoughts follow.
First, regulation is not only needed, but it has to work, and can.
And second, nationalisation is an answer which we abandoned to our long term cost.
Which brings me to my final point of the morning: long term money is cheap right now, and so is nationalisation as a result.
Which is my thought for the day.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
And we can expect the bullying and defence of monopoly to be taken up by the Tory party at their conference next week, Richard. But at last Labour’s position puts some clear blue water (as they say) between the two parties, while also illustrating that the Lib Dem’s claim to be the only party that makes a difference is as empty and worthless as much that they’ve done while in government.
I’ve also been heartened to see how prepared for the onslaught from big business and their lakeys most of the Labour front-bench seem to be. Certainly Caroline Flint’s dismissal of Angela Knight (Channel 4 News on Tuesday, I think: ‘I’m not going to be lectured at by someone who was spokesperson for the banking industry etc’ – or very similar) was priceless. And it was good to see Ed Milliband standing up to accusations that his policies are socialist, by mentioning social democracy and the failures of markets and regulation.
On the last point (regulation) it stikes me that Labour are on to a winner with this line of defence and attack. They can rightly point out that they are responsible for the current form and powers of many of the regulatory bodies. But they then need to ram home the point that the structure and powers of these bodies were the result of constant presure and lobbying from big business for light touch regulation. Plus, of course, the Tories, constantly saying there should be even less regulation.
We – the public – can now clearly see this situation is simply not fit for purpose in many sectors and across multiple activities. The task for the next Labour government – as with energy – becomes fixing that mess, only this time in a way that gives weight to consumers and citizens, and creates a more level playing field for businesses of whatever scale. I sincerely hope that One Nation Labour resolve and resources to stick to that task.
We can hope
Don’t be overly confident
The sun came out this morning, Richard, and after two days of mist and gloomy weather it probably led to a moment of over optimism 🙂
Having said that, I’ve just seen Caroline Flint’s response to Mandelson’s criticisms of the energy price freeze policy. She points out his financial interests. That’s two smarmy apologists for big business she’s had a go at in the space of two days. Good for her.
I was amazed when I just saw that
I did not expect that and think she did a great job
She smacked him down for all the right reasons too
Impressed!
The last sentence of my comment should have read: I sincerly hope that One Nation Labour has the resolve and resources to stick to that task.
I have always maintained that the privatisations which occurred in the 80s and 90s were nothing more than a blatant act of corruption. Why else would every minister responsible for privatising an industry end up on the board?
The fact that recent surveys find that most people questioned want the privatised services such as energy and transportation re-nationalised in some form shows that this would be a winner. But that fact that Labour have refused to commit to such a move, at least as far as the energy companies are concerned, shows that their recent announcement of a price freeze would be futile within a market led model; with so much notice given of the freeze speculators could easily manipulate wholesale energy prices as high as they can get away with and energy companies could raise tariffs so that they can be frozen at the highest level possible leaving people with no hope of a reduction for at least 20 months. In which case we would have similar ruse as the ConDems are using to say that they making energy prices more affordable by telling energy companies to scrap all the cheapest tariffs and leave customers with a cartel charging much the same band of tariffs at higher prices. You don’t get people to swallow poison by telling them it’s poison; you wrap it up in a sugar coating and tell them it’s going to do them good. You cannot control the free market in energy prices with measures such as this; the whole sector needs courageous and radical reform.
I agree with your closing sentiment
“You cannot control the free market in energy prices with measures such as this; the whole sector needs courageous and radical reform.”
Then chop out all the Green Subsidies like ROCs, FiTs, the CTS etc and then tell the ‘Big 6’ to cut their prices because at least then we won’t be paying for very expensive wind power that needs a vast back-up system.
And let’s then fall off a cliff as carbon runs out
What a strategy
“And let’s then fall off a cliff as carbon runs out
What a strategy”
Mr. M., we’ve got millions unemployed – especially young men – and an island made out of coal. Surely there’s a bit of solution to two issues there….
….or we could go nuclear – N-power still needs subsidies of course but in terms of output vs public cost vs stability of supply vs ‘low carbon’ there isn’t much to get past it.
I suspect that technology won’t stand still either *grins* – don’t ya know Cold Fusion is ‘just around the corner…..’ *grins again*
So you want people to fry their children’s future?
There are a whole load of competing plans to cope with the fact that both solar and wind are intermittent. The one we are going with is the “smart” grid. Basically, when demand exceeds supply people/places get turned off (or turn themselves off for as fee), a sort of controlled grid collapse.
The latest plan, the short-term-operating-reserve, means that organisations will build large diesel generating plant to provide immediate power when needed (they get paid just for beung available, which is probably why hospitals with their own back-up plant are happy with the idea)
Mind you…..there is this:
http://www.engineering.com/DesignerEdge/DesignerEdgeArticles/ArticleID/5388/Nuclear-Fusion-in-Five-Years.aspx
Which is what people are going with long term; nuclear fusion..MUCH less radiation than fission.
Either way, costs are going to get higher….in 4 years time electricity will be 50% higher in price than now. Nothing Mr Miliband can do will halt the rise, since it is due to factors he cannot control or influence. In fact, and it is a fact Richard, 20-25% of the current energy cost is down to the subsidies paid for renewables, and it is Eds climate change act that directly caused those.
As you often post links to Guardian articles and you are a fan of price controls and capital controls……….what are your thoughts on the article below:-
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/25/raspadito-venezuelans-currency-controls
Just how environmental is it to have people flying back and forth just to buy toilet paper and exchange dollars?…..Let me guess, more State power is required to stop this happening because its all such a success so far!
Do you honestly think you can make a case using a Venezuelan example?
If so, I feel just a little bit sorry for you
Ah I see, so all examples of Capital controls that fail can be ignored because they are not a Country on your approved list.
Iceland, Venezuela mean nothing, in your future Capital controls will all be a roaring success!
Is this like the argument that Socialism has never really been tried?
Am I arguing for socialism?
Or real social democracy?
And if you honestly think Iceland and Venezuela prove anything please don’t call again because it’s quite clear you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about
We used to have capital and exchange controls here for quite a number of years, yet they seemed to work pretty well. In the 1960s, you could not take more than £59 out of the country, which seems pretty draconian now, but they prevented the financial markets taking billions out of the country at a drop of a hat as they do now.
Exchange and capital controls hugely help to mitigate the damage that van be done by a rampant financial sector, which Asia and Mexico, to name just two in a very long list of countries economies destroyed by rampant deregulated finance have found out to their cost.
You neglected to point out that Venezuela is at this moment doing rather better than the US, as is China and other countries that have stood up to “free market” blackmail!
Want to destroy an economy? Let neoliberal economics run rampant!
Yes, Capital and exchange controls have no doubt unintended consequences but, as Greece and Ireland has found out, the alternative can be far worse!
And for what its worth, I don’t believe that 45% inflation rate either. More media manipulation, probably!
I think the problem with the new ‘left’ dialogue is well covered by this BBC 1996 interview between Noam Chomsky and Andrew Marr http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjENnyQupow. With BluLabour propaganda I feel we are moving to a situation where the perameters of their socialism are being defined by the very neoliberal market that it should be seeking to destroy, supported by the ‘establishment’ left’s top down position of ‘we can go this far and no further’. (Richard your ven diagram about the shifting centre illustrates this well). If Labour gain popular support from that stance, the argument for those who are fighting austerity and want the real courageous reform needed will enter a potentially very difficult and dangerous phase; it will mean that, ultimately people have accepted a fictional ‘middle ground’ between austerity and growth. But this ‘middle ground’ will ultimately be a continuation and acceleration of the current wealth dividing, corporatist thinking currently being talked about by the exponents of austerity. Can we allow neoliberalism to shape shift again, this time as a wolf in sheep’s clothing and hi-jack the ‘social contract’ for ends which equate to a more of an anti-social contract?
I’ll be posting the youtube separately
Thanks for that
What is the neo-liberal/free market justification for privatisation when it gives a monopoly to a private firm? This proves that they don’t really believe in competition.
I’m all for nationalisation. Let’s start with the banks!!!:-)
Our great PM Ben Chifley tried to do this in 1949 with the Bank Nationalisation Act but failed. It was struck down by the High Court as being unconstitutional. When a referendum was called it too failed. 🙁
Isn’t Nationalisation the ultimate in Monopoly? Who do you think run Nationalised Industries ? I saw how they operated – A self serving clique- just like Big Business Oligopolies only not as talented because they can’t pay as much. What happened to your original idea? – Proper Competition with the State acting as back stop to ensure that proper competition
Do you know that ownership is really quite remarkably unrelated to performance?
It is governance structures that matter in all cases
As public and social ownership has been fire sold to the City or as social ownership as mutuals, again also to be put into play on the stock markets, the effects begin to become ever clearer. Fewer common assets held in state, municipal or associational trust in a equitable way for all, and what follows is unstable employment, low wages. Conversely the rich take any gains they and their fund managers are the main players in the City, which is casino like, and they dominate the so called financial market. This seems to be imperfect with domination by an ollgarchy. Result rising percentage of GDP as profits while the percentage in wages falls. The economy skewed to serve the caprice and appetites of the well off. The common good is cast as being an authoritarian category, We are walking towards a society with ever increasing gated housing and security a major “product”. But there is increasing pain .
New ideas are coming through on how social and public ownership can be rebuilt. Andrew Cumbers has recently had published Reclaiming Public Ownership – Making Space for Economic Democracy See link http://www.scottishleftreview.org/article/re-imagining-public-ownership
The issue is also being debated in the USA link : http:democracycollaborative.org/
The Democracy Collaborative is working with the mayor of Cleveland, a rust belt city, to help recover employment by setting up the Evergreen Coops
Governance Structure is also the problem with Nationalised Industries. You (seem to) be advocating the same old Top Down, bureaucratic National Model. Now if you explored
Social Ownership instead that would be more interesting to me. So the industries you want “nationalised” would be owned/run by say the workforce or local communities.
Economies of scale could be brought about by sharing mutual services. But please not
a return to the dinosaurs of the past.
But that is easily solved by union representation on boards