Category Archives: markets

“Green” Energy, Competition, and Consumers

Posted on by
Reply

Technologies that can’t compete in the market place aren’t ready for market, nor are they ready for our consumption. Subsidizing these not-ready techs is one way of plusing them up. Another way is to penalize their competition for being too successful.

The New York Times tells this tale, albeit carefully buried in the nether regions of Katharine Seelye’s article. Overarching all of this is this:

New England [Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont] already pays the highest electricity rates of any region in the 48 contiguous states because it has no fossil fuels of its own and has to import all of its oil, gas, and coal.

That’s not strictly true; the Marcellus Shale holds more natural gas than you can shake a…drill…at, and a significant fraction of that lies under western New York. New York, though, is throwing every road block they can think of in the way of extracting the natural gas, which would give the Northeast a nearby, if not local, source of natural gas.

There are two items of interest that backdrop this. One is the spiking energy prices in the Northeast. For instance,

[f]or October, [a small business owner] had paid $376. For November, with virtually no change in his volume of work and without having turned up the thermostat in his two-room shop, his bill came to $788, a staggering increase of 110%.

The other is the lack of infrastructure: there are all of five pipeline systems in the region, with seven new systems proposed.

The six states’ governors had agreed to a regional solution to this, involving building those additional pipelines.

However.

Just last August,

the Massachusetts Legislature rejected the plan, saying in part that cheap energy would flood the market and thwart attempts to advance wind and solar projects. That halted the whole effort.

That halted the whole effort.

But, it’s OK. Progressives and “environmentalists” have your back. And they have sharpened their knives.

 

h/t Power Line

Obamacare and Doctoring

Posted on by
Reply

If you liked your doctor, you could keep your doctor. Maybe. If you were lucky, and your Obamacare Plan still had him on its cut-rate, cut-service list of acceptable (to the government) doctors.

Or, if you like the hospital that now employs him (which doesn’t guarantee you get to see him; the hospital will make that decision). After all, the government’s Obamacare

architects believe that doctors, to better bear financial risk, need to be part of larger, and presumably better-capitalized institutions.

Because, of course, these Progressive Democrats know better than doctors how to provide medical care, know better than you stupid voters how to choose doctors, and know better than either of you how to conduct the business side of any doctor-patient relationship.

In addition to that bit of Gruber-esque dishonesty and dark transparency, Scott Gottlieb, at the above link pointed out this consequence:

Local competition between providers, who vie to contract with health plans, is largely eliminated by these consolidated health systems. Since all health care is local, the lack of competition will soon make it much harder to implement a market-based alternative to ObamaCare. The resulting medical monopolies will make more regulation the most obvious solution to the inevitable cost and quality problems.

This is not at all an unintended consequence. Aside from Democrat disdain for free markets and competition, it’s long been an open goal of the Democratic Party to move our health coverage and our health provision industries into a one, linked, single-payer program—carefully run by government for our benefit, of course.

Start queueing up things to be remembered in 2016: the Democratic Party needs to be swept into history’s dustbin so this damage, among all of their other damage to our country’s weal and global standing, can be repaired.

The sweeping also should be presented as a warning to the Republican Party.

Thoughts on European Inflation and Tax Policy

Posted on by
Reply

Michael Heise, Chief Economist at Allianz SE, had some in his op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, but I want to focus on just a couple, for the mindset implied as he—and Europe’s politicians—address inflation and tax policy.

They [tax and ultralow-interest rate policies] encourage risk taking among investors searching for yield, potentially leading to malinvestment. They affect the distribution of income and wealth between the less affluent, who are most affected by low returns on bank deposits, and the wealthier, who tend to benefit most from rising share prices. Finally, perhaps most important, ultralow interest rates discourage savings for retirement and slow down the growth of existing pension assets.

“Ultralow rates encourage risk taking.” Yeah? And? That’s a business decision; no government need be—no government should be—involved in that. A free market will do a far better, far more efficient, with far prompter sanction application job of regulating risk taking businesses.

“Affect the distribution of income and wealth.” Yeah? And? To the extent such distributions can ever be bad, a free market is the best way to raise the prosperity of the least, and if the wealthy get wealthier, so what? The poor still are less poor. No government mandates or regulations can hope to match the prosperity creation that is freedom in the market.

“Ultralow interest rates discourage savings for….” This is true, and the ECB’s decision to artificially depress interest rates is negligently harmful to the poor, the retired, and those trying to save for retirement. Further, ECB and sovereign nation interferences in the market for debt instruments is purely political, and so it’s wholly unpredictable (who can tell when a politician will decide it’s in his interest to do something different?). That unpredictability seriously damages the ability of anyone to save for their future.

Tax policy shouldn’t be used for social engineering; optimally, it should be used only to fund basic government. The free market is a better place—more efficient, and faster acting—than government from which to regulate interest rates and risk. Even in social democrat Europe.

Economic Viability of Wind Energy

Posted on by
Reply

Tim Phillips, in The Wall Street Journal, quoted Christopher Flavin, of the Worldwatch Institute, as saying in 1984,

Tax credits have been essential to the economic viability of wind farms so far, but will not be needed within a few years.

It’s been a few years. It’s been 30 years’ worth of “few.”

In all, wind energy “generators” get $56.29 per MW-Hr in Federal subsidies. To put that in perspective, natural gas gets $0.64, and nuclear power $3.14.

These guys are free-loading off you and me, and it’s time to put a stop to it. They need to stand or fall in the free market: if their technology is ready for prime time, they’ll have no trouble. If their technology isn’t—after 30 years—they’ve had enough of our prop-up money.

Cut off the subsidies—or more accurately, do not renew them (they expired in 2013) with finality. While the new Congress is about it, it should cut off those natural gas subsidies (those for oil, too, even though they’re similarly just walking around money) and the nuclear energy subsidies, also.

The free market is a much better watchdog for energy production than the Federal government ever can hope to be, no matter how honest or diligent those bureaucrats and regulators might be.

Why the PRC Cannot Succeed Economically

Posted on by
Reply

…and why it’s feeling the need to go out from the Center of Heaven and seize the East and South China Seas, to expand into the Siberian oil and mineral fields (this time peacefully, but no less to the detriment of Russia), why it steals intellectual property.

One interview with an environmental engineering student at Tsinghua University stuck with me. His parents grew wealthy by building companies that made shoes and water pumps. But he had no desire to follow in their footsteps—and they didn’t want him to either. Better that he work for the state, they told him: the work was more secure, and perhaps he could wind up in a government position that could help the family business.

There’s more in the article, but this pretty much is the sum and total of it.