3 ms·

How much would it cost to subsidize natural gas prices back to previous prices? Is this feasible? Would be very interested in an order of magnitude estimate. I

by axg11 5y ago

How much would it cost to subsidize natural gas prices back to previous prices? Is this feasible? Would be very interested in an order of magnitude estimate. Innocent people are dying as the result of an unprovoked war. Sanctions on Russia will inevitably have some negative economic consequences for the West - the question is, what is the total price of these consequences?

okl 5y ago
The thing with subsidies is that you just increase the price people are willing to pay for the same amount which will make the problem even worse since there is a bottleneck on the supply side.
miohtama 5y ago
In the case of a war, rationing is more efficient tham subsidizing of necessities. This prevents hoarding and further price runs.
- Lascaille 5y ago
  >rationing is more efficient tham subsidizing You can't ration energy in a democracy while simultaneously being staunchly opposed to the development of new energy generation infrastructure. No electorate will tolerate that. It is as pure an example of 'you're not doing your job' as I can imagine. One of the core roles of government is to guarantee food and energy security for its populace.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    I think the plan now is precisely to develop that infrastructure.
  - kavalg 5y ago
    and water
protomyth 5y ago
Not in the near term, but I assume election wise the US will be back to full fracking and natural gas exports will resume from the US. Over $5/gallon pump prices are not a winning election strategy in the US.
- pfarrell 5y ago
  I definitely don’t disagree with what you said. It reminded me of the second Democratic debate in 2007. Candidate Mike Gravel said something that stuck with me [0] You only see $3. Just watch those wheels turn. There's another $4, which is what we spend to keep American troops around the world to keep the price. So you're paying more than seven dollars a gallon; you just don't know it. 0: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/us/politics/03demsdebate_transcript.html https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/us/politics/03demsdebate_...

by axg11 5y ago

okl 5y ago

The thing with subsidies is that you just increase the price people are willing to pay for the same amount which will make the problem even worse since there is a bottleneck on the supply side.

miohtama 5y ago

In the case of a war, rationing is more efficient tham subsidizing of necessities. This prevents hoarding and further price runs.

Lascaille 5y ago
>rationing is more efficient tham subsidizing You can't ration energy in a democracy while simultaneously being staunchly opposed to the development of new energy generation infrastructure. No electorate will tolerate that. It is as pure an example of 'you're not doing your job' as I can imagine. One of the core roles of government is to guarantee food and energy security for its populace.
- ben_w 5y ago
  I think the plan now is precisely to develop that infrastructure.
- kavalg 5y ago
  and water

protomyth 5y ago

Not in the near term, but I assume election wise the US will be back to full fracking and natural gas exports will resume from the US. Over $5/gallon pump prices are not a winning election strategy in the US.

pfarrell 5y ago
I definitely don’t disagree with what you said. It reminded me of the second Democratic debate in 2007. Candidate Mike Gravel said something that stuck with me [0] You only see $3. Just watch those wheels turn. There's another $4, which is what we spend to keep American troops around the world to keep the price. So you're paying more than seven dollars a gallon; you just don't know it. 0: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/us/politics/03demsdebate_transcript.html https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/us/politics/03demsdebate_...