Or rather the market wasn't free enough to let it fail.

I agree with the point newres makes. The essential failing was that a lack of regulation made banking failure a possibility as it appears that banks had lent their depositors' money without telling their depositors that their investments were at risk if the wheels fell off, and it appears that they used their depositors' money to buy magic beans on the way to the market. In any other enterprise that would be fraud, and anti-fraud legislation is indeed a market regulation.

Without the regulation to prevent the banks fraudulently lending money the free market was not allowed to balance the banks' enthusiasm for exotic investments against the banks' depositors' aversion to risk.

I don't necessarily agree that there should be regulation to limit how much a consumer should be allowed to borrow as a multiple of their salary, but I would expect a bank to decide for itself on a modest multiple which balances the profit to be made on the loan against the risk of default, and that balance would be influenced by the risk that the bank's deposit customers whose money the banks are lending were willing to accept. There is the problem that the deposit customers are likely to accept much higher risk when the borrowers are not actually defaulting and cry like babies when they lose their deposits having allowed the bank to lend their money recklessly, but that's their choice so what the hey. As long as banks are up front about the risk there will always be a range of risk, so the risk-averse can put their savings somewhere safe.

regulation meant that the banks were on a win win.

if it had been a completely free system they'd never have gambled like they did. but knowing that the tax payer wouold pick up the tab, it was & is business usual.

As regulation was rolled back, banking risks increased. Having the wrong regulation isn't proof that regulation is not required. Regulation didn't bail the banks out, government policy did.

and who puts the regulation in place?

Trebles all round.

What has that got to do with anything, especially the price difference in petrol compared to other neighbouring towns?

The whole banking thing anyway is a moot point.

People will borrow and then blame the bank for being unable to pay it back.. oh the interest it too high, they scream. I can't afford the monthly repayments, they moan.

Surely they are aware of these things, and need to take responsibility?

Just like people moaning about mobile betting apps.

If the price of petrol is too high locally, there are other alternatives. This fuel issue doesn't seem to make the local press, so I guess most people don't see it as a massive issue. That means those who are significantly disadvantaged need some alternatives themselves. If you work in a place that is only accessible by car, how about suggesting they implement a green policy so staff can get there by other means. Most good employers do this anyway. There is also a range of electric cars where fuel cost would be very low.

That's quite a neat idea. We have a town centre office, near station and bus stops. One of our people joined us, even though she took a slight drop in pay, simply because her last employer had an office just outside Newbury. Beautiful location, but the busses only ran in the afternoon! She doesn't drive so getting to work was a nightmare.

The price of petrol is high compared to a few years ago, but the discussion is about the apparent disparity rather than the actual cost. I think most people can figure out that if you can't or won't afford something, then they need to seek alternatives, that is just common sense and a fact of life.

People strive for independence, so unless the discount is significant, or an overwhelmingly more practical idea, many people will just struggle on.

This is why you need guidelines or regulation: to protect others from peoples profligacy. It is all very well say it is their fault, but those people are impacting on sensible people too.

Because Newbury is a relatively affluent town. The few pennies extra we pay makes up for the lower prices charged in less well off towns.


Beer in pubs isn't the same price across the country too.

Whetherspoons for instance.

Regulate them too.

£2 for a pint in Scotland I saw!

We are told the main reason is that Newbury doesn't have a fuel discounter. It has been argued that regional variances in fuel costs are not necessarily closely tied to average wealth.


That is easily more explained, but the big variations in cost to sell. that sis believe not to be such an issue in this region.

Why is the cost to sell in flogging beer any different to flogging fuel?

I'd be willing to bet that if Asda did move into Newbury, we'd see no change.

Remember when Walmart bought the entire chain? Everyone was gleefully expecting pricing in libne with that in the USA. What did we get - nothing.

ASDA advertise that they have a single national fuel pricing policy, so we would see a sustained drop in price. This was seen at 127.8p yesterday.

I think you mean 1.287.

With Sainsbury currently 1.299 I doubt they'd bother to match it. Tesco haven't matched Sainsbury & are still at £1.309

Fuel stations pretty much offer the the same facilities whereever you go; with beer, the 'landlord' may, or may not invest more in the business than a filling station. This might be entertainment, facilities, more exclusive products, wider variation in local rental price (rent tending to be more expensive in the town centre than the suburbs where you are more likely to find filling stations).


That is an easy bet to make under the current circumstances.

So beer in a town centre pub, that is clean & well furnished, with a wide & changing range of beers & exclusive offers is going to be more expensive than an out of town pub that is tied to a chain & never has a guest beer?

There you go! Most people don't see this as an important problem. The argument is about fractions of a penny after all. Using public transport makes you no less independent, after all as a car driver you are at the mercy of the fuel companies and the maintenance firms. If a train breaks down with serious mechanical problems, there is likely to be another. All the time we live in a capitalist democracy you are likely to see difference. If it were all the same, you'd likely have to fill your Trabant at the State fuel station.

WTFAYOA?

My point is quite simply that with selling beer, there can be more reasons for why beer has a wider price variation than filling stations.