How does Boris do it?

Oh . . he's so wonderful!  Wish I could get women to stare at me like that with such unbridled adoration.

 

pic.twitter.com/1kbDja6Hhc

— Peter Green (@PeterGreen1966) February 2, 2022

Energy Prices

I live by myself in a flat and in the past 12 months I've used 3,121 kwh's electricity and 6,684 kwh's of gas.  12 months ago with the tariff I had with Pure Planet (which has now ceased to trade) the total price for this energy would have been £507.27 for the electricity and £275.40 for the gas, equalling a total of £782.67.  This price continued until August 2021, less than 6 months ago. I should add that Pure Planet were offering their energy too cheap, hence the reason why they and many other energy companies went under.

I was put with EDF.  Their energy cost for that specific amount of energy I used is £738.66 for the electricity and £394.87 for the gas, equalling a total of £1,133.54.  £1,133.54 compared to £782.67, an increase of 45%.  

That's bad, very bad indeed.  But soon, it's going to get much worse.  In April it is anticipated that energy bills will increase by yet a further 50%.  This will be 50% of the current tariff of £1,133.54 (not of the £782.67).  50% of £1,133.54 is £566.77.  Hence, for my use of energy for a year the new cost will be £1,133.54 plus £566.77 equals £1,700.31

So, compared to a year ago my energy costs will be increasing from £782.67 to £1,700.31.  That's an increase of £917.64 or 217%!  In other words, in the space of a year, energy prices for me will have more than doubled*.

* For those shopping for the cheapest energy deal a year ago like myself, the price of energy will more than double.  However, if one didn't shop for the cheapest deal, then the price increase will most probably be less than double.  It's worth asking ourselves here, though, who would tend to shop for the cheapest energy deals?  Surely poorer people would be somewhat more likely to do so since money is very tight and they will shop for the very cheapest products and services.  Well-off people, on the other hand, may find the whole process of changing energy provider a bit of a hassle. 

The upshot of all this then is that many, if not most, of the very poorest people will be paying more than double for their energy as compared to a year ago.  This sum will likely be in the region of them having to find an extra £1,000 or so.  That is calamitous for poor people.  The Government must provide substantial help.  Not a mere £140 by extending the warm home discount (as has been mooted), that only makes a dent in the £1000. 

3/2/22  UPDATE

From here:

The new price cap, set by energy regulator Ofgem, will come into force in April, adding up to a rise of around £700 for an average household.

People paying default tariffs by direct debit will see an increase of £693 from £1,277 to £1,971 per year, while prepayment customers will see an increase of £708 from £1,309 to £2,017.

The cap is set for six months and could rise further afterwards.

At a glance, this means:

A 54% rise from the current price cap of £1,277.

Government loans will offset £200 of the annual increase, plus a £150 council tax rebate.

New rate comes in on April 1.

The £200 discount on energy will be paid back over five years through our bills.

The net effect is that bills rise by less in the next year, but fall by less in the years to come.

The plan all depends on the market price of energy falling.

Here's what I just said on facebook (or meta as it's now called).

So, a 54% increase in the price cap. My energy usage did amount to £782.67 a year ago for 3,121 kwh's electricity and 6,684 kwh's of gas. This is now £1,133.54 for the same energy. In April this will increase by 54.2%. So £1,748.21. A total increase since a year ago of £1,748.21 - £782.67 = £965.54 per annum.

And we're not even taking into consideration the apparently 20% increase in food prices (at least from my own case), the increase in national insurance, the £20 UC uplift being scrapped and many other strains on peoples wallets.

So how is the chancellor helping? We're being give a £150 reduction in council tax, and being given a loan of £200 to help pay our energy bills which will come in October and which we will pay back over the next few years.

£150, or £350 taking into account the loan. But if one opted for the cheapest energy deals a year ago, energy *alone* has increased by roughly £1,000.

This is utterly calamitous for poor people.

Flying Cars

 

A flying car as reported yesterday by the BBC here.

Impressive, but presumably colossally expensive. Can't see any flying "car" like this to be something many of us ordinary people would ever own. It's not so much a flying car, but a car that can convert into a plane, and vice versa. A flying car that looks like an actual car will never exist. It will always look like a plane or a helicopter, and that will limit their appeal even if they were remotely affordable (which they won't be).

And also forget about your flying skateboards.

Should the rich be subject to a wealth tax?

I frequently hear the sentiment that it is immoral for Governments to tax people. If people want their money to fund a health service, or to alleviate people's poverty and so on, then it should be voluntary. So, in the context of funding a health service, someone on Meta said:

"Forcing others to do things, even righteous things, is not morally sound. That is also basic common sense".

It seems to me, though, that this is confused thinking, perhaps deliberately so.
Think of a rich person who is a socialist. He thinks society ought to be a great deal less unequal than it currently is. Now, he personally can give an appreciable amount of his money away and for no other rich person to do so. But, if he is giving away his money equally to millions of people, that won't make much of a dent in alleviating their poverty since his money, being spread out over so many impoverished people, will make little difference to any of their lives.  So it is fairly futile, all that happens is that he becomes that much poorer. So what he wants is for ideally all rich people to give a percentage of their wealth away, not just him alone.

Let's suppose many, if not most, rich people feel exactly the same way.  That is, they are not in favour of giving any substantial amount of their wealth away if they are the only ones doing so.  But they are in favour of giving a percentage of their wealth away should all other rich people do so too. In that case, by introducing some type of wealth tax, Governments would be forcing them to do what they want as a collective whole. 

There's a relevant article just been published today:

Millionaires call on governments worldwide to ‘tax us now’

It says:

The group, which also includes Nick Hanauer, a venture capitalist who made an almost $1bn fortune from an early bet on Amazon, said an annual “wealth tax” on those with fortunes of more than $5m (£3.7m) could raise more than $2.52tr.

That would be enough, they said, to “lift 2.3 billion people out of poverty; make enough vaccines for the world and deliver universal healthcare and social protection for all the citizens of low and lower-middle-income countries (3.6 billion people).”

So rich individuals would be forced to pay this tax, but it is far from immoral since, first of all, it is consonant with what a number of rich people would actually prefer.  But, more importantly, it would alleviate a vast amount of hardship and suffering.  Indeed, I submit it is immoral not to have either a wealth tax or some other measure to help out the most impoverished. 

People might find my following blog post also of interest:

Is there a better alternative to capitalism?

Life back in 1300

I have no idea what peoples lives were like centuries ago. Say in 1300 or whenever. Were the common people mostly hungry all the time? Constantly suffering from plague, disease, illness? Was life short, nasty and brutal? How did they entertain themselves? They didn't have the Internet, nor TV, nor books (and they couldn't read anyway).
And what would they think of our modern world?

And if I went back in time to 1300, what would they think of me? Would I be able to blend in? Would they think I'm weird?

What physicists claim exists can be doubted

Do our theories in physics mirror how reality really is? Physicists invoke a bewildering plethora of subatomic particles and sometimes even "strings", warped space-time, extra dimensions and so on to explain our observations of the world.  And, indeed, doing so can often accurately predict what we observe.  But look at the following gif.

In the gif we can see that the movement of the small black circles can be explained if we imagine they reside on the corners of moving invisible equilateral triangles, or alternatively on the corners of moving invisible squares, and so on. 

Invoking alternative, apparently incompatible, invisible mechanisms to explain what we observe can also be applied to the actual physical world.  Watch the short 3 minute video below.

 
If it's the case that distinct differing mechanisms can explain our observations, then this invites the question of whether any of these invisible mechanisms actually exist?  Perhaps they simply function as tools to enable us to predict and ultimately control the world?

On this issue theoretical physicist Mano Singham asks in "The Great Paradox of Science":

If extraterrestrial beings were to visit the Earth at some point, that would imply they possessed technology superior to ours. If we could communicate with them, would we find that the theories of science on which their technological prowess was based were the same or a close approximation to ours (as would be the case if the theories of science are true or approaching truth), or would we find them to be completely different, suggesting that there is no unique truth out there waiting to be discovered?

I think most probably that the aliens conception of reality would be very different from ours. It is my suspicion that it's not truth that physics is revealing, rather physics merely provides the means for improved engineering.  Hence, despite their usefulness, the theoretical entities conjured up by physicists, such as the various subatomic particles, do not have a literal existence.  

Indeed, I am inclined to think that what theoretical physicists allege exists and doesn't exist gets it precisely the wrong way around.  Hence, it seems to me that the various hypothetical entities employed in physics might well not literally exist.  Contrariwise, that colours, sounds, and odours do exist*. 

*I mean by the words colours, sounds, odours as we actually experience them so that the external world is literally coloured.  I intend to argue for this in a future blog post.

The unvaccinated

 From here. 

Around the world, patience with those who are wilfully unvaccinated is running out in the face of yet another viral surge. 

Those who are unvaccinated do not equate to vaccine sceptics.  Also, what is the meaning of the word "wilfully" in this context?

Why weren't they "impatient" with the Governments of the world not taking decisive radical action back in January 2020 and countless times since?  Why weren't they (and aren't they), "impatient" with those who make absolutely no attempt to keep away from others?  Why weren't they (and aren't they) "impatient" with those who say/said the virus is just like flu or a bad cold, or that the virus will simply die out (eg Elon Musk et al)?  

If everyone were like me, the virus would never had had a cat in hell's chance.