4 ms·

I always find the free market vs government arguments a false dichotomy. Even the free-est markets require a whole host of government services: regulation, stan

I always find the free market vs government arguments a false dichotomy. Even the free-est markets require a whole host of government services: regulation, standards setting, contracts enforcement, antifraud measures provision and infrastructure to name but a few. People only cry free market when they don't like a particular government activity. That coal plant relies on infrastructure to get its coal. It needs fair utility prices to deliver its power to customers. It needs reliable (abuse free) markets to sell the power on. It needs voltage and frequency/time standards to access the network. It needs contract enforcement to actually get paid by its customers. It needs insurance and educated workers and a CEO who won't embezzle. All provided by government, all welcomed by industry. But suddenly government has no place in free markets when it comes to CO2.

westurner 6y ago
Should we prefer penalties or incentives in order to use predictable markets for the change we need?
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  That depends on whether you want power to be cheaper or more expensive. Cheaper is nice but you'll pay for it taxes etc. Expensive is painful at the point of consumption but encourages efficiency. It's a strategic and political decision and depends on a nations needs and objectives...
  - westurner 6y ago
    I want to minimize the external environmental costs of electricity production and distribution. Given that the market has selected the least energy-efficient cryptoasset, we should not expect markets to just change given the existing incentives.
- NeutronStar 6y ago
  Why not both?
whimsicalism 6y ago
Elizabeth Anderson has made this point quite aptly: every market has rules and norms.
pydry 6y ago
>But suddenly government has no place in free markets when it comes to CO2. Oil/utility/nuclear are the main groups that pushed for this idealistic notion of "free markets" in the first place via think tanks like CATO and AEI and groups like ALEC. At the time when they pushed it the hardest there were few alternatives so the "free" market naturally selected them. While the concept gained a lot of mindshare in the American public they've since stopped pushing it quite so hard and are obviously not quite so keen on it. It's especially ironic that they criticize renewables mainly on the basis of variability, which is probably best solved by market based solutions.

westurner 6y ago

Should we prefer penalties or incentives in order to use predictable markets for the change we need?

LatteLazy 6y ago
That depends on whether you want power to be cheaper or more expensive. Cheaper is nice but you'll pay for it taxes etc. Expensive is painful at the point of consumption but encourages efficiency. It's a strategic and political decision and depends on a nations needs and objectives...
- westurner 6y ago
  I want to minimize the external environmental costs of electricity production and distribution. Given that the market has selected the least energy-efficient cryptoasset, we should not expect markets to just change given the existing incentives.
NeutronStar 6y ago
Why not both?

whimsicalism 6y ago

Elizabeth Anderson has made this point quite aptly: every market has rules and norms.

pydry 6y ago

>But suddenly government has no place in free markets when it comes to CO2. Oil/utility/nuclear are the main groups that pushed for this idealistic notion of "free markets" in the first place via think tanks like CATO and AEI and groups like ALEC. At the time when they pushed it the hardest there were few alternatives so the "free" market naturally selected them. While the concept gained a lot of mindshare in the American public they've since stopped pushing it quite so hard and are obviously not quite so keen on it. It's especially ironic that they criticize renewables mainly on the basis of variability, which is probably best solved by market based solutions.