Maximum role of Government?

[JA37]

Why would Branson care? It's not his itch to scratch. Billionaires have other things to do than jump on every single profit opportunity. They go for the big fish. It's the little guys that take care of the local problems.

And yes, a government sponsored monopoly isn't only comparable to tyranny, it is tyranny. In your own words:

Only one provider meant no cost for advertising, everybody who wanted power had to pay.

And besides, you can indeed remove a tyrant. It's been done before, just takes a little work.

Fine, pick another rich guy. Point is that whatever you're saying will happen isn't happening.

The difference being what in another market? Pay and you get service. Pay little to the monopoly and get service, compared to pay a lot to the "free market" to get service. In the example we're talking about. So the free market is a tyranny now? Or is it the fact that I get to choose which of the big players I will give my money that makes it better than paying a little to one I have no choice in.

[1714884078]

1714884078

[1714884078]

1714884078

[1714884078]

1714884078

[myrkul]

Fine, pick another rich guy. Point is that whatever you're saying will happen isn't happening.

The difference being what in another market? Pay and you get service. Pay little to the monopoly and get service, compared to pay a lot to the "free market" to get service. In the example we're talking about. So the free market is a tyranny now? Or is it the fact that I get to choose which of the big players I will give my money that makes it better than paying a little to one I have no choice in.

You're deliberately twisting my words. What you have is NOT the free market. What you have is a government established oligopoly, which is supported by regulation costs making the barrier to entry too high. You can't just 'pick another rich guy', it has to be somebody who has a reason to enter the market aside from marginal profits 10 years down the line.

[JA37]

Fine, pick another rich guy. Point is that whatever you're saying will happen isn't happening.

The difference being what in another market? Pay and you get service. Pay little to the monopoly and get service, compared to pay a lot to the "free market" to get service. In the example we're talking about. So the free market is a tyranny now? Or is it the fact that I get to choose which of the big players I will give my money that makes it better than paying a little to one I have no choice in.

You're deliberately twisting my words. What you have is NOT the free market. What you have is a government established oligopoly, which is supported by regulation costs making the barrier to entry too high. You can't just 'pick another rich guy', it has to be somebody who has a reason to enter the market aside from marginal profits 10 years down the line.

Funny thing is, if you look at the papers written about this, they do talk about barriers to entry but never about artificial barriers of entry which is what you're suggesting. The barriers are high cost of building power plants and infrastructure. Those barriers would remain even in your utopian "free market". So what you have is a few big players with no interest of competing and no new players interested in joining, which screws the customer even more than a monopoly does, because now you have the illusion of choice and nobody to hold responsible.

[myrkul]

If I install solar panels and have excess, can I sell my power to my neighbor?

[JA37]

If I install solar panels and have excess, can I sell my power to my neighbor?

If that question was for me then yes, I think so. I doubt that you are allowed to use circuits connected to the grid though.

[myrkul]

If I install solar panels and have excess, can I sell my power to my neighbor?

If that question was for me then yes, I think so. I doubt that you are allowed to use circuits connected to the grid though.

Wait, why can't I hook to the grid? It's a free market, isn't it?

[JA37]

If I install solar panels and have excess, can I sell my power to my neighbor?

If that question was for me then yes, I think so. I doubt that you are allowed to use circuits connected to the grid though.

Wait, why can't I hook to the grid? It's a free market, isn't it?

Free but not unregulated. And you can sell power to the power companies if you follow certain rules in setting the equipment up. I think that has to do with protecting the grid from faulty equipment.
And how would you be able to differentiate your power from any other power if you sent it over the regular grid. You'd have to have your own grid to distribute it to your neighbour.

[MoonShadow]

If I install solar panels and have excess, can I sell my power to my neighbor?

If that question was for me then yes, I think so. I doubt that you are allowed to use circuits connected to the grid though.

If you have never seen one generator running in one back yard, with extension cords running to three or four neighbors during a power outage, then you have never really seen this kind of activity in practice.  I have seen it happen on the fly, as a refrigerator takes very little power to run in 24 hours, but most residential refrigerators need to have power at least 10 minutes of every hour to maintain temps.  What people in hurricane country will do, is freeze gallon jugs of seawater for a couple days prior to the hurricane, (they get a warning after all) and will keep those jugs in their freezer to maintain cold between opprotunities to share power.  One decent sized genset can run the compressors on several refrigerators for a straight hour in the morning, in the heat of mid-day, and once more just before dark and the cold mass of the saltwater jug in the freezer and a freshwater jug (or several) in the refrigerator will carry the temps till daylight.  In this way, the cost of capital is lower, because only one guy needs to own the genset; and the costs of fuel are lower, because larger gensets & non-coincidental load sharing are more efficient ways of electrical generation.  The normal way this kind of ad-hoc transaction occurs, is that the neighbors who piggy-back off of the generator owner's genset are providing the (majority) of the gas for this arrangement, while the owner provides the genset and the scheduling.  It is also fairly normal for clothes washing (not machine drying) to be schedualed in a like manner.

If this kind of arrangement were cheaper/better overall as compared to the massive economies of scall that the power company enjoys, we would see this kind of thing happen all the time.  We might yet.

[myrkul]

Free but not unregulated. And you can sell power to the power companies if you follow certain rules in setting the equipment up. I think that has to do with protecting the grid from faulty equipment.
And how would you be able to differentiate your power from any other power if you sent it over the regular grid. You'd have to have your own grid to distribute it to your neighbour.

Then why don't more people set up panels or other generation systems? Look into it yourself, You could turn a bill into a profit stream. And how do the power companies differentiate? They don't. They come check the meter, and however much you have used, that's what they charge you for.

[JA37]

Then why don't more people set up panels or other generation systems? Look into it yourself, You could turn a bill into a profit stream. And how do the power companies differentiate? They don't. They come check the meter, and however much you have used, that's what they charge you for.

Have a look at the response above yours. MoonShadow explains it rather well.

I mean how do you differentiate the power you generate from the power the power company generate? Can't do it, unless you have a separate circuit.

I do however still want an explanation about why why that thing you're saying should happen doesn't happen. Why don't we see competition in these areas? Why doesn't the market "fix it" all by itself?
Another interesting fact: clean energy is only happening because of government sponsoring. They're "wasting" money by helping people set up wind turbines and other renewables and while doing so sponsoring technology development in these areas. The first wind turbines that went up cost more energy to produce than they gave during their lifetime, now they give a net surplus. Left to the free market we wouldn't have as much wind power as we do today, reducing the CO2 emissions for everybody. 

[myrkul]

I mean how do you differentiate the power you generate from the power the power company generate? Can't do it, unless you have a separate circuit.

They can't either. They just know that they put out X, and you used Y, so they charge you, because you contracted with them. And as long as the total of all the Ys add up to less than or equal to X, they're OK.

I do however still want an explanation about why why that thing you're saying should happen doesn't happen. Why don't we see competition in these areas? Why doesn't the market "fix it" all by itself?
Another interesting fact: clean energy is only happening because of government sponsoring. They're "wasting" money by helping people set up wind turbines and other renewables and while doing so sponsoring technology development in these areas. The first wind turbines that went up cost more energy to produce than they gave during their lifetime, now they give a net surplus. Left to the free market we wouldn't have as much wind power as we do today, reducing the CO2 emissions for everybody. 

1, they're doing nothing a sufficiently motivated rich individual or private charity couldn't do, and arguably more efficiently.
2, we would have wind turbines, and other clean sources of energy, when they became cost effective (ie: oil prices raised to the point that turbines, even with their low initial efficiency become worthwhile)

[JA37]

1, they're doing nothing a sufficiently motivated rich individual or private charity couldn't do, and arguably more efficiently.
2, we would have wind turbines, and other clean sources of energy, when they became cost effective (ie: oil prices raised to the point that turbines, even with their low initial efficiency become worthwhile)

1) But IT ISN'T HAPPENING. Nothing stopping neither of those doing it today, and if they can do it better everybody wins. But it isn't happening. What? Is the market not free enough for a charity to do their thing?

2) So after global warming have reached the tipping point and we're all screwed then? You remind me of myself when I was ten and built boxcars. Just when I realized that the car was going a bit too fast I remembered that brakes would have been good to add to the car too. The market is really good at resource allocation, but when it comes to planning it sucks, and not just a little.

[myrkul]

1, they're doing nothing a sufficiently motivated rich individual or private charity couldn't do, and arguably more efficiently.
2, we would have wind turbines, and other clean sources of energy, when they became cost effective (ie: oil prices raised to the point that turbines, even with their low initial efficiency become worthwhile)

1) But IT ISN'T HAPPENING. Nothing stopping neither of those doing it today, and if they can do it better everybody wins. But it isn't happening. What? Is the market not free enough for a charity to do their thing?

Not contesting point 2. Doesn't mean that forcing people to pay for your vision is the way to get it done.

As for the reason why it's not getting done, You actually could argue that the market isn't free enough.
Rather than leave it there, though, I'll explain:
The government makes a great deal of fuss about how much money they spend on 'green' projects. This has two chilling effects on green charities: 1, "They're already doing it". This would affect the charities themselves, since the government is already doing it, there's no need for it to be done.2, "I already pay for that". This would affect the people who would potentially give to the charity, since their taxes already go to pay for the green programs they would sponsor, there's no need to give more.

[MoonShadow]

1, they're doing nothing a sufficiently motivated rich individual or private charity couldn't do, and arguably more efficiently.
2, we would have wind turbines, and other clean sources of energy, when they became cost effective (ie: oil prices raised to the point that turbines, even with their low initial efficiency become worthwhile)

1) But IT ISN'T HAPPENING. Nothing stopping neither of those doing it today, and if they can do it better everybody wins. But it isn't happening. What? Is the market not free enough for a charity to do their thing?

How do you know that it's not happening?  I am aware of a great deal of micro-hydro power systems being installed across my state, some privately while others are locally public/private ventures.  None larger than 10 kw, that I know of.  There are hundreds of sutible micro-hydro sites in Kentucky, and many of them have already been bought up for this purpose.  Many of the old locks are being converted or circumvented for this end.  Even the local power company has gotten into the micro game, and retrofitted the McAlpin Locks & Dam (which routes river barge traffic around the Falls of the Ohio) into a 10 Mw hydro.  There are also solar power contractors that are installing roof systems in my city, I had one come out and give me a quote last year.  Granted, that's not quite the same as power sharing with my neighbor, but grid-tied green power is both legal and growing around here.  With grid-tie, the power utility then becomes an intermediary broker, but there is nothing preveting me from dealing directly with my next door neighbor.

2) So after global warming have reached the tipping point and we're all screwed then? You remind me of myself when I was ten and built boxcars. Just when I realized that the car was going a bit too fast I remembered that brakes would have been good to add to the car too. The market is really good at resource allocation, but when it comes to planning it sucks, and not just a little.

The free market is actually quite good at planning.  This may be counter-intuitive, but hsitory bears it out.  Much better at planning than central planning has ever been over any extended period of time.

[myrkul]

How do you know that it's not happening?  I am aware of a great deal of micro-hydro power systems being installed across my state, some privately while others are locally public/private ventures.  None larger than 10 kw, that I know of.  There are hundreds of sutible micro-hydro sites in Kentucky, and many of them have already been bought up for this purpose.  Many of the old locks are being converted or circumvented for this end.  Even the local power company has gotten into the micro game, and retrofitted the McAlpin Locks & Dam (which routes river barge traffic around the Falls of the Ohio) into a 10 Mw hydro.  There are also solar power contractors that are installing roof systems in my city, I had one come out and give me a quote last year.  Granted, that's not quite the same as power sharing with my neighbor, but grid-tied green power is both legal and growing around here.  With grid-tie, the power utility then becomes an intermediary broker, but there is nothing preveting me from dealing directly with my next door neighbor.

Heh. Had no idea any of that was going on. Guess that's what you get when you pull as far away from the 'white' market as I have.

[JA37]

Not contesting point 2. Doesn't mean that forcing people to pay for your vision is the way to get it done.

As for the reason why it's not getting done, You actually could argue that the market isn't free enough.
Rather than leave it there, though, I'll explain:
The government makes a great deal of fuss about how much money they spend on 'green' projects. This has two chilling effects on green charities: 1, "They're already doing it". This would affect the charities themselves, since the government is already doing it, there's no need for it to be done.2, "I already pay for that". This would affect the people who would potentially give to the charity, since their taxes already go to pay for the green programs they would sponsor, there's no need to give more.

I disagree with you about not forcing anyone. I don't believe your right to fuck things up is greater than others right to not have their life fucked up.

Chilling effects? So charities with a lot of money and being ever so much more efficient than anything the government will not develop the solution to all problems because "the government is already funding green tech, so let's just sit on our money instead, or use it for hookers and blow".
And people who just can't give to charities because they pay too much tax won't give to charity anyway. It's not the taxes that prevent it, it's their will to give.
So I would say that your arguments would be of better use in a field as fertilizer since it's clearly bullshit all of it.

And you still haven't explained why no new players emerge in the power market and undercuts the profit monsters that are there now. It should happen according to your theory, and no significant artificial barriers of entry exists according to papers about the power market. And when I say new players, I mean large enough players to actually have an impact. Those who have tried have been either unsuccessful or bought by the major players.

[myrkul]

I disagree with you about not forcing anyone. I don't believe your right to fuck things up is greater than others right to not have their life fucked up.

Chilling effects? So charities with a lot of money and being ever so much more efficient than anything the government will not develop the solution to all problems because "the government is already funding green tech, so let's just sit on our money instead, or use it for hookers and blow".
And people who just can't give to charities because they pay too much tax won't give to charity anyway. It's not the taxes that prevent it, it's their will to give.
So I would say that your arguments would be of better use in a field as fertilizer since it's clearly bullshit all of it.

Your right to swing your arm ends at my face. Why should that be any different for anything else?

It's not that pre-existing charities would decide to blow the money on hookers and blow,  but that no new charities would come into existence, because of the existing government funding. Same for any that did: "Sorry, GreenPower Collective, My taxes already pay for the kinds of research you say you'd be funding, so, I'll pass."

And you still haven't explained why no new players emerge in the power market and undercuts the profit monsters that are there now. It should happen according to your theory, and no significant artificial barriers of entry exists according to papers about the power market. And when I say new players, I mean large enough players to actually have an impact. Those who have tried have been either unsuccessful or bought by the major players.

You just did. The successful ones got bought out. I'm not saying that won't happen without the government, but I'd wager there'd be more competition for them to buy out than they can afford to pay off.

[JA37]

Your right to swing your arm ends at my face. Why should that be any different for anything else?

It's not that pre-existing charities would decide to blow the money on hookers and blow,  but that no new charities would come into existence, because of the existing government funding. Same for any that did: "Sorry, GreenPower Collective, My taxes already pay for the kinds of research you say you'd be funding, so, I'll pass."

You just did. The successful ones got bought out. I'm not saying that won't happen without the government, but I'd wager there'd be more competition for them to buy out than they can afford to pay off.

Because life just isn't that simple.

Really, no new charities? So, since there already are government welfare programs no new soup kitchens will emerge? Good to know. I'd say that reality disagrees with you again though. People donate to such charities all the time, even though they pay for it with taxes. Why not for a green initiative? Because it won't support your ideology?


It hasn't been for 15 years, how long should the consumer wait for the market to fix the prices? Or should the consumer just sit tight and hope that perhaps their children will see real competition in the market?

[myrkul]

Because life just isn't that simple.

Really, no new charities? So, since there already are government welfare programs no new soup kitchens will emerge? Good to know. I'd say that reality disagrees with you again though. People donate to such charities all the time, even though they pay for it with taxes. Why not for a green initiative? Because it won't support your ideology?


It hasn't been for 15 years, how long should the consumer wait for the market to fix the prices? Or should the consumer just sit tight and hope that perhaps their children will see real competition in the market?

No, actually, it pretty much is. I leave you alone, you leave me alone, and we never fight. See how simple that is?

People see progress in green initiatives, and gaps in welfare. So, the charities fill the gaps, but don't spring up to push green initiatives where government is making progress. In economic terms, there is no demand, so nobody supplies. (or rather, what demand is there is already met)

I wasn't aware that your government had been dissolved. Why didn't anyone tell me AnCapistan was here?

[JA37]

No, actually, it pretty much is. I leave you alone, you leave me alone, and we never fight. See how simple that is?

People see progress in green initiatives, and gaps in welfare. So, the charities fill the gaps, but don't spring up to push green initiatives where government is making progress. In economic terms, there is no demand, so nobody supplies. (or rather, what demand is there is already met)

I wasn't aware that your government had been dissolved. Why didn't anyone tell me AnCapistan was here?

It is, if you live in a bubble and your actions don't impact anyone else. Outside of that things get a little more complex.

I would have to call bullshit on that argument again. That's not how markets work. People see a demand/market and think "I could do that better" and compete in the current market. If people just gave up because there already is a supplier somewhere you wouldn't have competition anywhere. New business pop up everywhere doing almost exactly the same as the business already there, while trying to differentiate themselves in various ways.

No, the government hasn't been disolved. Still you refuse to answer though. When the monopoly was discarded and anyone was free to compete what you said would happen hasn't happened. Why do you think that is? Perhaps reality isn't as simple as you'd like it to be?