Last week I noted the projected increase in "fuel poverty" in the United Kingdom and speculated that such a trend might have political consequences. The UK coalition government and their creative policy analysts have come up with a solution for this difficult situation -- they are proposing to redefine "fuel poverty" in a manner that shows it to be decreasing, not increasing (
see figure above from the FT).
Voila, problem solved!
5 comments:
With integrity like that, why wouldn't everyone want government in charge of every aspect of our lives? 1984 wasn't in the past.
It really makes me proud to be British. The British government is the mendacity machine on which the sun will never set.
George Orwell would be suing for intellectual copyright violation if he was still alive.
In fairness, the old definition of fuel poverty did not actually measure what most of us would consider fuel poverty.
If the government had taken serious its obligation to alleviate fuel poverty under the old definition, it would have been subsidizing some very wealthy families who are using a disproportionate amount of fuel.
The real problem here is that the government can make these changes very selectively. If this change had the opposite practical effect, there is little chance that the government would have made the same decision.
Surprise..
They also tend to change the definition of 'who is rich' after they finally convince everyone that 'taxing the rich' is a good idea.
It's an old accounting trick, much like "carbon credits," or legerdemain.
Now, the real question is: Where does an objective (free from appeals to emotion) measure of [fuel] poverty establish the threshold?
He who has power to manipulate perception, also has power to effect reality, which is properly described as selectivity or bias, typically due to self-interest or prejudice, respectively.
Keynes believed the only proper socialization of economics was to promote employment. The market would adapt to reflect a true measure of supply, demand, and capital. Unfortunately, through extraordinary measures, the market has been and continues to be distorted, so that true valuation of products and services does not exist. So, from time to time, we intervene and adjust definitions to compensate and, in the process, invent new markets to further distort reality. In America, this occurs at a rate of nearly $7 trillion annually accounting for nearly 1/2 of the national GDP in fiscal 2011.
Seriously, with that kind of capital redistribution, it's difficult to believe that indigence, let alone homelessness, is even a consideration. Of course, there will always be individuals who choose to fail, and they will always skew the statistics.
As for "fuel poverty", they should resist mass distribution of energy derived from sources which are only suitable for limited, circumstantial deployment. The market will correctly pass the costs to the consumer, and if we intervene further, it will improperly redistribute them.
Let's hope we discover the proper balance between economics and good stewardship. This is especially pertinent to resource recovery and energy production, which underlies all economic development.
Post a Comment