4 ms·

That may not be nuanced enough for the desired results. Sounds like a lot of these places would like to still provide plentiful cheap power to industrial compan

by NickM 8y ago

That may not be nuanced enough for the desired results. Sounds like a lot of these places would like to still provide plentiful cheap power to industrial companies that actually create jobs and generate useful output that stimulates the local economy.

jessriedel 8y ago
If government-directed job creation is the desired goal, why not just hand the preferred companies cash? That would be a lot more transparent and targeted than subsidizing utilities Venezuela-style.
- gruez 8y ago
  probably because subsidizing electricity sounds better to voters than handing out cash. same reason why governments prefer giving tax breaks rather than cash to entice multinationals to "create jobs".
- 394549 8y ago
  > If government-directed job creation is the desired goal, why not just hand the preferred companies cash? That would be a lot more transparent and targeted than subsidizing utilities Venezuela-style. This isn't a subsidy, it's hydro power; which is limited, but cheap to produce. If the bitcoin miners drive the price up without providing many jobs, it may incentivize the actual employers that were attracted by the low price to leave for other areas. It's a net negative for the community. To benefit from cheaper electricity, you have to use it, and traditionally that's been through employing people to operate machines. If the companies got a cash subsidy instead, they would probably pocket the cash without doing as much as they promised to do to get it.
  - darawk 8y ago
    > To benefit from cheaper electricity, you have to use it, and traditionally that's been through employing people to operate machines. If the companies got a cash subsidy instead, they would probably pocket the cash without doing as much as they promised to do to get it. Money is fungible. Whether they're saving it by having cheaper electricity or getting cut a check is irrelevant.
    - jdietrich 8y ago
      Electricity isn't fungible. There are substantial costs and efficiency losses involved in transmission, so electricity is significantly cheaper to supply if the consumer is right next door to a giant hydroelectric plant. Energy-intensive industries that form part of the productive economy are exactly the industries that we want to use that power. We want aluminium smelters and chemical manufacturers to be sucking up that cheap, clean energy. It's an efficient use of resources. Churning out gigajoules of waste heat to process kilobytes worth of transactions is not an efficient use of resources. It's a colossal waste that has done nothing useful except enrich a bunch of speculators.
      - darawk 8y ago
        Charge more for the electricity. Take the profit and cut a check to the productive companies. Problem solved.
        jdietrich 8y ago
        If you charge the Bitcoin miners more, they will just leave - they go wherever they can find the cheapest electricity. I have no objection to charging the miners more, but your proposal seems to be a needlessly complex administrative option.
        darawk 8y ago
        Indeed they will. Sounds like a problem solved to me. Charge a market rate for your electricity, then subsidize what you want to subsidize.
        s73v3r_ 8y ago
        And what about the residents of the area? Do they now just have to suffer with higher bills, or are they going to get a rebate too?
        darawk 8y ago
  - jessriedel 8y ago
    > This isn't a subsidy, it's hydro power; which is limited, but cheap to produce. The government is buying electricity from the region next door to make up for shortfalls, so I am confident they could sell their cheap electricity the other direction as well when they have an excess. Not selling that electricity at market prices and instead selling it at below market rates to companies because you think they benefit your community is a subsidy. Heck, even if you couldn't sell the electricity to neighboring regions, you should still sell it at market rates and then distribute the resulting money in a more targeted way. > If the companies got a cash subsidy instead, they would probably pocket the cash without doing as much as they promised to do to get it. You don't have to hand them cash for nothing. You could give it as payroll tax breaks or a million other methods that are a lot more targeted than per-KW-hr. It's lunacy to think that power usage is even roughly proportional to the number of people employed pre-bitcoin. Businesses very tremendously in their power-usage-to-employee ratio.
wtracy 8y ago
What if the allotment of cheap electricity for each company was calculated as a function of the number of people employed by the company whose primary residence is within county limits?

by NickM 8y ago

jessriedel 8y ago

If government-directed job creation is the desired goal, why not just hand the preferred companies cash? That would be a lot more transparent and targeted than subsidizing utilities Venezuela-style.

gruez 8y ago
probably because subsidizing electricity sounds better to voters than handing out cash. same reason why governments prefer giving tax breaks rather than cash to entice multinationals to "create jobs".
394549 8y ago
> If government-directed job creation is the desired goal, why not just hand the preferred companies cash? That would be a lot more transparent and targeted than subsidizing utilities Venezuela-style. This isn't a subsidy, it's hydro power; which is limited, but cheap to produce. If the bitcoin miners drive the price up without providing many jobs, it may incentivize the actual employers that were attracted by the low price to leave for other areas. It's a net negative for the community. To benefit from cheaper electricity, you have to use it, and traditionally that's been through employing people to operate machines. If the companies got a cash subsidy instead, they would probably pocket the cash without doing as much as they promised to do to get it.
- darawk 8y ago
  > To benefit from cheaper electricity, you have to use it, and traditionally that's been through employing people to operate machines. If the companies got a cash subsidy instead, they would probably pocket the cash without doing as much as they promised to do to get it. Money is fungible. Whether they're saving it by having cheaper electricity or getting cut a check is irrelevant.
  - jdietrich 8y ago
    Electricity isn't fungible. There are substantial costs and efficiency losses involved in transmission, so electricity is significantly cheaper to supply if the consumer is right next door to a giant hydroelectric plant. Energy-intensive industries that form part of the productive economy are exactly the industries that we want to use that power. We want aluminium smelters and chemical manufacturers to be sucking up that cheap, clean energy. It's an efficient use of resources. Churning out gigajoules of waste heat to process kilobytes worth of transactions is not an efficient use of resources. It's a colossal waste that has done nothing useful except enrich a bunch of speculators.
    - darawk 8y ago
      Charge more for the electricity. Take the profit and cut a check to the productive companies. Problem solved.
      - jdietrich 8y ago
        If you charge the Bitcoin miners more, they will just leave - they go wherever they can find the cheapest electricity. I have no objection to charging the miners more, but your proposal seems to be a needlessly complex administrative option.
        darawk 8y ago
        Indeed they will. Sounds like a problem solved to me. Charge a market rate for your electricity, then subsidize what you want to subsidize.
      - s73v3r_ 8y ago
        And what about the residents of the area? Do they now just have to suffer with higher bills, or are they going to get a rebate too?
        darawk 8y ago
- jessriedel 8y ago
  > This isn't a subsidy, it's hydro power; which is limited, but cheap to produce. The government is buying electricity from the region next door to make up for shortfalls, so I am confident they could sell their cheap electricity the other direction as well when they have an excess. Not selling that electricity at market prices and instead selling it at below market rates to companies because you think they benefit your community is a subsidy. Heck, even if you couldn't sell the electricity to neighboring regions, you should still sell it at market rates and then distribute the resulting money in a more targeted way. > If the companies got a cash subsidy instead, they would probably pocket the cash without doing as much as they promised to do to get it. You don't have to hand them cash for nothing. You could give it as payroll tax breaks or a million other methods that are a lot more targeted than per-KW-hr. It's lunacy to think that power usage is even roughly proportional to the number of people employed pre-bitcoin. Businesses very tremendously in their power-usage-to-employee ratio.

wtracy 8y ago

What if the allotment of cheap electricity for each company was calculated as a function of the number of people employed by the company whose primary residence is within county limits?