British Gas (Centrica Plc - the UK corporation) believe the lazy shopper should be punished with higher charges - so they charge loyal customers more. They also use complex tariffs so that it is very difficult to tell if another tariff is actually any cheaper.
Is this is a good, or even the best, policy from the point of view of society?
British Gas Customer Relations declined to comment... Perhaps, in the interests of economy, they don't have a corporate philosopher and shareholders discourage their managers from thinking about social impacts of their business model?
According to Adam Smith, "Trust" is fundamental to economic development, and to the equitable workings of "Market Economies" (Evensky; JHET 2011). This policy of punishing the loyal, and rewarding the suspicious, penny-pinching, and ruthless, shopper who considers nothing but price, seems to me like a breach of trust. Certainly spamming customers with complex tariffs is a breach of trust. Also it discourages the most effective strategies for development and to maintain well-being (in repeated interactions). Namely: 'tit-for-tat' (with forgiveness) and 'you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours'.
Naively, perhaps, I would have hoped that our biggest commercial organisations were not like that.
On the other hand, it could be helpful to sometimes remind shoppers that the primary raison d'etre of corporations is to make profits. It is making profits that makes corporations frugal. When there is little excess profit in our spending corporations will serve our interests most effectively. But, in markets where customers are lazy and ill-informed sellers will extract excess profits, and allocations will be less than ideal. Consumers will be poorer.
Rewarding price comparisons, and the lowest bidder, would ultimately lead to bankrupting of all but the least ethical - and so to calls for a strong and more active state.
This situation, where our biggest companies encourage the ruthless shopper, leaves a lot of responsibility on institutions that influence our 'morals' and our 'values' (namely: leaders; parents; churches; & the media). So strong ethics, within companies, are vital to avoid the worst effects of free competition.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Global Sustainability - some notes
| Title | Consider |
|---|---|
| WHAT DO WE WANT? {why} | |
| Sustainable__ | Species/Habitats/Ecosystem |
| °C | |
| ↑LivingStandards / ↓Deprivation__ | Energy |
| Ferts/Chems | |
| DO? {what} | ↓CO2 ↓Energy ↓Fert/Chem ↓LandUsed[?] |
| TOOLS? {how} | |
| Incentives/Rewards - $ | |
| Values/Norms - debate/ideas - celebrities - prizes - religions/church - media | |
| Costs - taxes - subsidies - user fees | |
| Regulations - punish/fine | |
| Rights: to Use/Do things | |
| PROBLEMS? {but} | |
| conflicting ↑LivingStds <==> ↓E/Fert | |
| incommensurable Spp; LivingStds; E; °C | |
| costs transaction/ monitoring/ dead_weight | |
valuations
| |
| {who} {when} {where} |
Monday, March 15, 2010
Trapped in Our Modules? - Cars and the Ideal City
can't drive his module
road movies
rebel without a cause
max max - with his nitro enhanced machine [/monster]
chrysler socal LA [factcheck!]
Is there not something completely out of proportion with a primate weighing perhaps 70kg choosing to travel about in vehicles weighing between 1000kg (Fiat) and 2400kg (Chev)? Per day these vehicles use an average of around 41,000 kCal from fuel, to transport people who need around only food with 2,300 kCal per day for good health.
instinct for size;power;image;loudness;freedom;agency
manipulated
remember all of the types driven/owned
- partially sex driven/ appeals to our most basic instincts
aspirations of the world popn
not only in the 'rich west': a minor leader in the revolution nicaragua (provincial Matagalpa) chose to receive a Land Cruiser as a reward of office - a great expense and a rarity in the country. Given the levels of deprivation a bus, or truck, could have served a great many more. In North Korea, as is true in virtually every other country, "[The passenger car] is the ultimate symbol of the prosperity of high officials" (Bloomberg). In developing economies car sales are booming. Sales in India and China are at record levels and, there too, cars are seen as a necessary symbol for having reached a 'good standard of living' (Gallup). Lagos is being rebuilt to suit automobile driving commuters.
In America, the relative prices of cars have not changed in the last 90 years (using Wage Rates, or GDP per capita). For example, in 1925 agricultural labourers earnt $630 per year (NBER 1929) and a Model T Ford cost just under $300 - and, in 2010, the cheapest cars were around $10,500-$14,500 and agricultural workers earnt $22,000 (18,800 median earnings; 24,400 citizens: USDA-ERS 2008).
Thus automobiles have become the icons, in the religious sense, in the modern world.
Margaret Thatcher famously commented that "A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself as a failure" (House of Commons, 1986).
In the USA there are around 240 million registered cars, SUVs, & pickups (Statistical Abstract of the USA) - and many more scrapped or unregistered. This is equivalent to 0.8 vehicles per capita. If all countries took up motoring at the same rate as the USA, there would be 5.4 billion passenger vehicles in use on earth - using 56 billion barrels of oil per year, compared to total consumption of 3.1 billion barrels in 2008. These might need 5 billion tonnes of steel and much energy to manufacture, with immense CO2 emissions. Road deaths would also increase, and the problems from such greatly increased CO2 emissions could be very grave.
purchase of influence [thru instinct; affinities;
networks; legitimated aspirations;
advertising; and explicit lobbying]
all these have together given aspirations to the world popn
- which would be difficult to realise in practice
'modern' cities designed around cars - need not be so. many other arrangements are possible and provide shorter, healthier, and more pleasurable, commutes - as well as a more enjoyable environment. Congestion, time pressures - for example getting children to school - are all things that could be greatly eased by better planning and incentives. There are still many habited places without vehicles - some inaccessible; some poor, or ancient, and ill-adapted for cars; and some cut off by bad roads in wet seasons. Some of the most valued cities in the world are in fact old ones in Europe where driving is impractical.
road movies
rebel without a cause
max max - with his nitro enhanced machine [/monster]
chrysler socal LA [factcheck!]
Is there not something completely out of proportion with a primate weighing perhaps 70kg choosing to travel about in vehicles weighing between 1000kg (Fiat) and 2400kg (Chev)? Per day these vehicles use an average of around 41,000 kCal from fuel, to transport people who need around only food with 2,300 kCal per day for good health.
instinct for size;power;image;loudness;freedom;agency
manipulated
remember all of the types driven/owned
- partially sex driven/ appeals to our most basic instincts
aspirations of the world popn
not only in the 'rich west': a minor leader in the revolution nicaragua (provincial Matagalpa) chose to receive a Land Cruiser as a reward of office - a great expense and a rarity in the country. Given the levels of deprivation a bus, or truck, could have served a great many more. In North Korea, as is true in virtually every other country, "[The passenger car] is the ultimate symbol of the prosperity of high officials" (Bloomberg). In developing economies car sales are booming. Sales in India and China are at record levels and, there too, cars are seen as a necessary symbol for having reached a 'good standard of living' (Gallup). Lagos is being rebuilt to suit automobile driving commuters.
In America, the relative prices of cars have not changed in the last 90 years (using Wage Rates, or GDP per capita). For example, in 1925 agricultural labourers earnt $630 per year (NBER 1929) and a Model T Ford cost just under $300 - and, in 2010, the cheapest cars were around $10,500-$14,500 and agricultural workers earnt $22,000 (18,800 median earnings; 24,400 citizens: USDA-ERS 2008).
Thus automobiles have become the icons, in the religious sense, in the modern world.
Margaret Thatcher famously commented that "A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself as a failure" (House of Commons, 1986).
In the USA there are around 240 million registered cars, SUVs, & pickups (Statistical Abstract of the USA) - and many more scrapped or unregistered. This is equivalent to 0.8 vehicles per capita. If all countries took up motoring at the same rate as the USA, there would be 5.4 billion passenger vehicles in use on earth - using 56 billion barrels of oil per year, compared to total consumption of 3.1 billion barrels in 2008. These might need 5 billion tonnes of steel and much energy to manufacture, with immense CO2 emissions. Road deaths would also increase, and the problems from such greatly increased CO2 emissions could be very grave.
purchase of influence [thru instinct; affinities;
networks; legitimated aspirations;
advertising; and explicit lobbying]
all these have together given aspirations to the world popn
- which would be difficult to realise in practice
'modern' cities designed around cars - need not be so. many other arrangements are possible and provide shorter, healthier, and more pleasurable, commutes - as well as a more enjoyable environment. Congestion, time pressures - for example getting children to school - are all things that could be greatly eased by better planning and incentives. There are still many habited places without vehicles - some inaccessible; some poor, or ancient, and ill-adapted for cars; and some cut off by bad roads in wet seasons. Some of the most valued cities in the world are in fact old ones in Europe where driving is impractical.
Friday, January 1, 2010
The Aims of This Blog
Most of the world's problems are ultimately due to the choices and actions of individuals. These can be changed for 'good-living'. You can make a bigger pie; You can restrict access to the pie - Or, redirect shares of it (while possibly making the pie smaller); Or, you can use information and incentives to get people to behave better.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
There Is More To Value Than Just The Price
You Are Voting for Company Values with Your Spending
Efficiency is very important, because it is by being efficient that we get richer: through doing more with less (or the same). Hence it is important that we do not promote waste.
None-the-less when you buy anything you are actually voting for the values of the company, (or co-operative, farmer, stallholder, or state-enterprise) that is selling the item to you.
Thus if you always buy the cheapest, you are telling the company that it is only price that matters. And leaving it to other people to tell them things like: how well to pay their unskilled workers; how much to spend on the environment; whether to contribute to good causes; whether to use unethical marketing practices; and how much to minimise tax. (With globalization most of these can often just be ignored).
If you always buy the cheapest, the companies that find ways of getting round these 'external' costs will win. The others will just go bankrupt. Your spending is an enormous influence on producers, so choose your brands with care, and vote with your money for worthy corporations and coop's.
Some Chinese state enterprises, and Israeli kibbutzim, have schools, old age homes, and housing to support - and although they are moving slowly to market provision of these things, they still face markets where some employ 16 year-olds and house them in dormitories. Most large companies in the UK provide corporate pension plans for their workers - these can be a big burden, and make it near impossible to compete with companies that avoid the responsibility.
"Vote Wisely With Your Money"!
Efficiency is very important, because it is by being efficient that we get richer: through doing more with less (or the same). Hence it is important that we do not promote waste.
None-the-less when you buy anything you are actually voting for the values of the company, (or co-operative, farmer, stallholder, or state-enterprise) that is selling the item to you.
Thus if you always buy the cheapest, you are telling the company that it is only price that matters. And leaving it to other people to tell them things like: how well to pay their unskilled workers; how much to spend on the environment; whether to contribute to good causes; whether to use unethical marketing practices; and how much to minimise tax. (With globalization most of these can often just be ignored).
If you always buy the cheapest, the companies that find ways of getting round these 'external' costs will win. The others will just go bankrupt. Your spending is an enormous influence on producers, so choose your brands with care, and vote with your money for worthy corporations and coop's.
Some Chinese state enterprises, and Israeli kibbutzim, have schools, old age homes, and housing to support - and although they are moving slowly to market provision of these things, they still face markets where some employ 16 year-olds and house them in dormitories. Most large companies in the UK provide corporate pension plans for their workers - these can be a big burden, and make it near impossible to compete with companies that avoid the responsibility.
"Vote Wisely With Your Money"!
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
How Many Prisoners in Jail is Enough?
Incarceration rates have been increasing in several western countries for the last few decades. Politicians in the UK are planning for another 5000 prison places (2008/9). Where will it end? What proportion of young males do we want to see in jail? There are other options.
While 'zero tolerance' may have reduced personal and property crime in the USA, it roughly doubled the prison population. Society becomes less secure, and nastier, as the cycle of offending and criminal justice goes on, while prisoner numbers continue to rise.
Approximately 1 out of 75 males of all ages in the USA are in jail (derived from DoJ) - and 1 out of 10 young males in some minority groups (mainly blacks). This proportion would be equivalent to 300,000 male prisoners in the UK - 4 times more than at present.
Should we simply jail all delinquents (the vast majority males) from the age of 17 to 35? This might equate to a prison population of 750,000 in the UK. Surely not - there are other options that are more efficient, and more humane and friendly.
Within a few years the vast majority of offenders are released (average jail sentences are much less than 2 years) - bringing with them bitterness at their treatment, and crime skills acquired in jail. Are we simply going to carry on locking up ever greater numbers of young men, and putting up with a more and more dysfunctional society?
There are better ways. In Iceland there were only 115 prisoners out of a population of 300,000 - or 1 out of 1,300 males in jail (OECD, 2006). At that sort level of crime it would be feasible to 'micro-manage' each offender with social workers (or community enforcer/motivators). Such a society would be a much nicer place to live than one where you have to lock up 1 out of 75 just to keep a lid on high rates of crime. Micro-management would be feasible in a service economy and, with less crime, would be cheaper than locking up so many.
It would be very cost-effective to address the motivations for crime, and lack of cohesive (efficacious) communities around the world, rather than massive expenditure on crime and 'criminal justice'. And, a lot could be done by correcting misapprehensions, lack of education, or opportunities, and gross inequalities.
Societies that succeed in reducing crime, rather than punishing ever more offenders, will be nicer ones to be part of (and much more humane).
While 'zero tolerance' may have reduced personal and property crime in the USA, it roughly doubled the prison population. Society becomes less secure, and nastier, as the cycle of offending and criminal justice goes on, while prisoner numbers continue to rise.
Approximately 1 out of 75 males of all ages in the USA are in jail (derived from DoJ) - and 1 out of 10 young males in some minority groups (mainly blacks). This proportion would be equivalent to 300,000 male prisoners in the UK - 4 times more than at present.
Should we simply jail all delinquents (the vast majority males) from the age of 17 to 35? This might equate to a prison population of 750,000 in the UK. Surely not - there are other options that are more efficient, and more humane and friendly.
Within a few years the vast majority of offenders are released (average jail sentences are much less than 2 years) - bringing with them bitterness at their treatment, and crime skills acquired in jail. Are we simply going to carry on locking up ever greater numbers of young men, and putting up with a more and more dysfunctional society?
There are better ways. In Iceland there were only 115 prisoners out of a population of 300,000 - or 1 out of 1,300 males in jail (OECD, 2006). At that sort level of crime it would be feasible to 'micro-manage' each offender with social workers (or community enforcer/motivators). Such a society would be a much nicer place to live than one where you have to lock up 1 out of 75 just to keep a lid on high rates of crime. Micro-management would be feasible in a service economy and, with less crime, would be cheaper than locking up so many.
It would be very cost-effective to address the motivations for crime, and lack of cohesive (efficacious) communities around the world, rather than massive expenditure on crime and 'criminal justice'. And, a lot could be done by correcting misapprehensions, lack of education, or opportunities, and gross inequalities.
Societies that succeed in reducing crime, rather than punishing ever more offenders, will be nicer ones to be part of (and much more humane).
Sunday, October 12, 2008
More Likely to be Dead by Saturday
Realistically, you are much more likely to die before a lottery than you are to win it. In the UK about 10 people die each day in traffic accidents - many more than win lotteries. Then, there are heart attacks, cancers and so forth (which also kill many times more than traffic accidents). All the same, it is tempting to think about what you might do if you won.
But perhaps, rather than thinking about what you could do if you won and being disappointed again, you could do things that might actually make you happier in the long run. There are quite a few little, and some big, things that you could do to make you more satisfied with your life. Researchers have been looking into this for quite a long time. For example Michael Argyle in the 1960's and 70's, and more recently Ed Diener and Martin Seligman.
For example:
You can be happy without winning a lottery! (And even if you did win, after an initial year or two of extra happiness, you are likely to be just as happy as you would be if you had not won at all).
Please email me if you think that this needs editing (see my profile).
Keywords: 'lotteries'; 'happiness'; 'likelihood of dying'; 'things to do'.
But perhaps, rather than thinking about what you could do if you won and being disappointed again, you could do things that might actually make you happier in the long run. There are quite a few little, and some big, things that you could do to make you more satisfied with your life. Researchers have been looking into this for quite a long time. For example Michael Argyle in the 1960's and 70's, and more recently Ed Diener and Martin Seligman.
For example:
- EXERCISE (moderate exercise has millions of benefits, including mood and happiness);
- COUNTING YOUR BLESSINGS (in other words thinking about your own good fortune: if you are reading this, you were not run over by a car today. Savour everyday enjoyment);
- FAITH (irrespective of denomination, people with faith say they are more satisfied with their lives than those who say they do not have a faith)
- FIND SOMETHING TO OCCUPY YOU (that is something that you enjoy and find purposeful)
- TAKE PART IN GROUP, OR SOCIAL, ACTIVITY (we are social animals, and we appreciate the feedback and reinforcement that other people give us. Being acknowledged and greeted as part of a group is better than just watching TV)
You can be happy without winning a lottery! (And even if you did win, after an initial year or two of extra happiness, you are likely to be just as happy as you would be if you had not won at all).
Please email me if you think that this needs editing (see my profile).
Keywords: 'lotteries'; 'happiness'; 'likelihood of dying'; 'things to do'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)