Moderator: Community Team
Timminz wrote:Isn't that just straight-up price-gouging? There are laws against that here. But laws against gouging aren't exactly holding with free-market principles, are they?
Snorri1234 wrote:Timminz wrote:Isn't that just straight-up price-gouging? There are laws against that here. But laws against gouging aren't exactly holding with free-market principles, are they?
IN A TRUE FREE MARKET OTHER COMPANIES WOULD JUST BUILD THEIR OWN INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE POWERNETWORKS!
Timminz wrote:Snorri1234 wrote:Timminz wrote:Isn't that just straight-up price-gouging? There are laws against that here. But laws against gouging aren't exactly holding with free-market principles, are they?
IN A TRUE FREE MARKET OTHER COMPANIES WOULD JUST BUILD THEIR OWN INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE POWERNETWORKS!
Or buy the hedges that the culprit was offering (even during the blackout, they say).
It's their own fault for not hedging properly.
everywhere116 wrote:You da man! Well, not really, because we're colorful ponies, but you get the idea.
Lootifer wrote:Thoughts on the situation?
oVo wrote:Lootifer wrote:Thoughts on the situation?
ENRON did this in the US and made huge profits in California.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Who owns the entire power infrastructure? Who owns the infrastructure sector involved in the alleged forced blackout? Is it just that one state-owned company paying the bill? Are you aware of the fact that infrastructure outages also occur with state-owned infrastructures (guess who pays for it, you, the taxpayer)?
Also, one needs to examine what laws interfere with which incentives in order to get a full understanding of this before declaring, DERP MARKET FAILURE, or DERP, GOVERNMENT FAILURE. Because cases like these are extremely complicated to understand.
I'm really not going to invest the time in answering those questions or conducting research because I'm focusing on different things.
Snorri1234 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Who owns the entire power infrastructure? Who owns the infrastructure sector involved in the alleged forced blackout? Is it just that one state-owned company paying the bill? Are you aware of the fact that infrastructure outages also occur with state-owned infrastructures (guess who pays for it, you, the taxpayer)?
Also, one needs to examine what laws interfere with which incentives in order to get a full understanding of this before declaring, DERP MARKET FAILURE, or DERP, GOVERNMENT FAILURE. Because cases like these are extremely complicated to understand.
I'm really not going to invest the time in answering those questions or conducting research because I'm focusing on different things.
It's not the blackout that is the problem, it's the price-gouge.
These were scheduled maintenance blackouts, they were planned to happen. There is nothing actually complicated about this matter: The one party had a monopoly for a few hours so they increased their prices by several orders of magnitude for that time. The companies buying the power had to pay those prices or not supply any power to their customers.
That's straight up being a dick. it's not even market failure because that would imply a deeper problem.
oVo wrote:Lootifer wrote:Thoughts on the situation?
ENRON did this in the US and made huge profits in California.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Snorri1234 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Who owns the entire power infrastructure? Who owns the infrastructure sector involved in the alleged forced blackout? Is it just that one state-owned company paying the bill? Are you aware of the fact that infrastructure outages also occur with state-owned infrastructures (guess who pays for it, you, the taxpayer)?
Also, one needs to examine what laws interfere with which incentives in order to get a full understanding of this before declaring, DERP MARKET FAILURE, or DERP, GOVERNMENT FAILURE. Because cases like these are extremely complicated to understand.
I'm really not going to invest the time in answering those questions or conducting research because I'm focusing on different things.
It's not the blackout that is the problem, it's the price-gouge.
These were scheduled maintenance blackouts, they were planned to happen. There is nothing actually complicated about this matter: The one party had a monopoly for a few hours so they increased their prices by several orders of magnitude for that time. The companies buying the power had to pay those prices or not supply any power to their customers.
That's straight up being a dick. it's not even market failure because that would imply a deeper problem.
If it's simple than answer those questions and write about it. You would overnight become an economist on public policy, knowledgeable on common pool resources, and the relevant laws.
Juan_Bottom wrote:oVo wrote:Lootifer wrote:Thoughts on the situation?
ENRON did this in the US and made huge profits in California.
A little different though. ENRON engineered the whole thing and then lied about it.
Schwarzenegger was linked to it all too, as was the Republican party, before he was endorsed for governor. California is one messed up state. My state is corrupt, but at least our politicians have the decency to hide it.
Arnold Schwarzenegger’s “solutions to California’s energy woes” reflect those of former Enron chief Ken Lay. On May 17, 2001, in the midst of California’s energy crisis, which was largely caused by Enron’s scandalous energy market manipulation, Schwarzenegger met with Lay to discuss “fixing” California’s energy crisis. Plans to “get deregulation right this time” called for more rate increases, an end to state and federal investigations, and less regulation. While California Governor Gray Davis and Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante were taking direct action to re-regulate Califonia’s energy and get back the $9 billion that was vacuumed out of California by Enron and other energy companies, Schwarzenegger was being groomed to overthrow Davis in the recall. Thus canceling plans to re-regulate and recoup the $9 billion.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users