Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#1
All the Bulgarian government resigns
Bulgarian citizens protesting at the sale of the utility companies
And rising energy prices
The Bulgarian people must have learned something from the British rip-off example
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#2
seeing that they are all planning to move here anyway, the government must have decided to get a head start on the proles.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#3
Apparently the Bulgarian citizens have accused gangsters in the government for the sell of
Ditto in the uk I think
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#4
Anyone would think that things were better when we had the old state monopolies, they were certainly not. A state monopoly would not be immune to the rising costs in the world energy market and would certainly be a lot more inefficient. Energy prices would be a lot higher here.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#5
maybe so barry,but there is a freelance rip off since floged them off to these con merchants.as for the bulgarians,give them some people power.an up rising would be nice.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#6
The official reason why the Bulgarian prime minister resigned is because he does not agree that the Police should be beating the people. He did not resign because of the high fuel-electricity prices.
His point being, if the people have an issue or a grievance, the Police should not go and beat them.
Clearly the people demonstrating were not committing acts of violence to merit a Police intervention of the kind that prompted the Government's resignation.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#7
they can't be doing too badly if they still have a police force alex, over here we have to beat ourselves up.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#8
Bulgaria is prosperous, Howard.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#9
howard,what is a police man.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#10
Barry 4
You cannot get away from the facts
The uk utilities where owned by every citizen in the uk ,until the conservative party aided by the labour party ,soled it of to there friends.
Profits from the uk utility's went back into the Infrastructure
Infrastructure that was 20 years in advance of projected uk needs.
Under your chosen way ,UK utility Infrastructure is collapsing and stretched, and will need a uk taxpayers bailout.
Profits trousered by the shareholders
Ps .
Not every bodes pensions is connected to the stolen profits of the utility industries
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#11
kiethb,for once i agree with you.but dont hold your breatf its only a one of at the moment.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#12
interesting im agreeing to
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#13
KeithB to suggest that the old nationalised industries were 'owned by every citizen in the UK' is utterly fatuous. There was never any sense of ownership except among the ideological left who have never known the time of day.
The truth is these inefficient monopolies were liabilities to the taxpayers and, the truth is, were not investing sufficient money into the infrastructure. The new privatised sewerage companies inherited a decaying Victorian sewer system as just one example. There has been far more capital investment since privatisation than before.
Once again you are basing your arguments on a whole string of fallacies.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#14
If the assets of government are not the property of the citizen then who's property was it Barry.
Haw Meany power station have been built in the uk sins privatisation?
And I don't mean them that whir part of the north see gas investment rollout ,another public robbery.
Haw Meany reservoirs have been built / or more to the point soled of?
Haw much gas storage has been built in comparison to other similar EU country's
Germany can go for 8week the uk 10 days ?
And I never advocated nationalising.
just government hands of managing, whith profits returning to investment ,instead of the robbery we see today
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#15
Keith B - An asset - they were a massive liability, loss making and inefficient. Good job you do not give investment advice.
As for power stations, this is a matter of government policy and we have seen how policy has caused massive power supply problems stacking up. The drive for green energy and the failure of government to give the green light to the next generation of nuclear power. If only the dad hand of government was removed from power generation all together...
Reservoirs as well, look at the Broad Oak farce locally... There is a common problem in all of what you refer to - the government.
Have you been on the nectar? the last para is unintelligible.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#16
Barry, you wrote:
"the failure of government to give the green light to the next generation of nuclear power".
Actually, this is a contradiction within your own argument: the Gov. did not fail to give the green light to new nukes, it was a German company (RWE I think its name is) that decided not to go ahead with building one or more atom stations in Britain (Wales if correct). The reason being, the decision of the German state to keep true to the German law which imposes a close-down of German atom stations.
So RWE, that runs a number of power stations in Germany, could not finance the construction of any new plant in Britain.
If the British Government were to build nuclear power stations here, they would have to do the opposite of what you say, and build them with State money, and this is exactly what you say should not be the case.
Was just a thought...
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#17
If there was no assets your lot wouldn't have jumped in for the profits?
They couldn't have soled them.
The north sea gas profit that was just starting to come ashore where going to be directed to Infrastructure by the then energy minister .
And Thatcher cancelled all that when she come to power as she set about the dismantling of uk industry.
And its your lot that's sign off all this green crap
You never see the housing bubble coming and the 2008 crash coming,
you where blabbering on about corrections,
You're the last person to be talking about investment advice, you're supposed to be the insurance adviser.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#18
i remember the british telecom privatisation with people being restricted as to how many shares they could purchase, many tried to cheat and get caught.
didn't sound like an inefficient monopoly to those people.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#19
Alexander - no - this goes back 12 years or more. That is how long the nuclear power industry have been waiting for the go-ahead. This is not a matter of what you refer to as 'State money' either. It is a highly controlled and regulated part of the power generation industry and businesses cannot just go ahead and decide to build without government say-so.
My lot Keith, my lot... Why are you so divisive? You could have bought the shares yourself. You might own or have owned them anyway, via your pensions/ISAs or whatever. There is no them and us here.
Also to correct your personal insult in that post....
I am a professional investment adviser who has been fee based since 2004. I am not an insurance adviser, though a bit of term assurance and income protection are sidelines. To describe me as an insurance adviser is a personal insult and is as bad as if I were to call you a prat or worse. I have a track record second to none with my bespoke investment portfolios so I certainly can talk about investment advice. It is clearly a subject about which you have absolutely no idea about.
I should correct you about other things as well. I have been saying for a long time, well before the 2007 slow-down that the regulatory reforms were wrong, that the inflation brief was wrong and that the Brown/Blair regime were spending far too much money. It is all of these things that led to the current economic crisis. Being an investment adviser I clearly need to be highly informed about economics and spend a considerable amount of time every day looking at economic trends and issues. People pay me to be so informed and to benefit from that knowledge.
Howard - when BT replaced the Post Office as telephone provider in preparation for privatisation, the old monopoly was already in the process of being being dismantled. People wanted to invest, quite rightly, in what was seen to be a potential massive growth company. Freed from that dead hand of nationalisation it certainly was that. No-one in their right mind would ever want to go back to the old monopoly.
There should be no nationalised businesses at all - the State cannot run anything and the less the State does or tries to do the better off we all would be. It should get off our back, defend the country and put criminals behind bars - that is about it.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#20
Keith, privatisation works thus:
the Gov. sells State assets and reaps a huge profit. There is an influx of money into the Treasury.
It's a one-off.
After which, the profits from these assets no longer come into the Treasury.
However, the same assets cannot be sold twice by the State.
The companies that bought these assets pay tax to the Treasury on their profit, but they also keep part of the profit.
Without State regulation on earnings and tariffs, they can charge what they want to the customers.
There is no scientific law that can prove that a utility company, if OWNED by the State and RUN by competent managers EMPLOYED by the State, will not function properly.
The problem starts when people suggest that a State OWNED company equates to being RUN by ministers and not by competent managers employed for the purpose.
Essentially what you write here is correct, the British State has handed over massive inflows of cash to private owners.
This is one reason why Government borrowing has gone up all the time, accumulating in Public Debt.
We will pay the price, and are paying it, to service a £1 trillion Public Debt.
Ultimately, the Gov. does not mind how expensive utility bills become, because the companies owning the infrastructure pay tax on their profits. The more they earn, the more tax they pay into the Treasury.
However, the Government can then conveniently put the blame of high electricity/gas/water bills on the plate of the private companies.
This way, Keith, you are just running around in circles from Pontius to Pilate, paying and paying, and Gov. won't ever bother hearing you. They're too busy messing about with the budget, with the debt-based ponzi scheme, and figuring out how to get a few more billions onto the always-negative-balance-sheet.