7 ms·

Competition in the energy market is key to bringing more renewables online. With Texas style retail choice we’ve seen 10% of their power come from wind, and tha

Competition in the energy market is key to bringing more renewables online. With Texas style retail choice we’ve seen 10% of their power come from wind, and that’s not for environmental reasons. It’s just pure market dynamics at play. But we’ve also seen blackouts ~$10,000 residential power bills come out of Texas, so that’s what utilities focus on when there’s talk of competition in other markets. There are other forms of competition that work better. The form used in CA, OH, and MA is community choice aggregation, which lets municipalities buy electricity for their residents. Newton MA procures 80% of its electricity as renewable. Marin County CA is at 100%. CCAs reduce residential electric bills by 2-9% vs monopoly utilities. With CCA you get the price reductions of the free market, combined with the protections of regulation. The only opposition comes from utilities.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
WalterBright 4y ago
> There are other forms of competition that work better. There certainly are. The one that works best is the free market.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  There is no such thing as a free market.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    You're right, perfection is never possible. Free markets, however, have the wonderful property that the closer one gets to them, the better they work! On the other hand, the closer one gets to socialism, the worse it works :-(
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      It just means markets have to be managed. Better management makes better markets, but politics only tolerates so much management merit. Socialism is politics.
    - Retric 4y ago
      The issue is free markets require more than just open competition, they need zero market coercions such as monopolies or misinformation, while also being free from governmental interference. That’s clearly a direct contradiction. So basically nobody is actually promoting free markets, they all have their own spin to get past these contradictions.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        Free markets do not require perfect information. Every transaction made has an element of risk in it - the risk is factored into the price. Buying a used car is a perfect example. They cost more at a dealer than from a private party - because people will pay more for lower risk. Another example is name brands costing more than generic items. Another is less risky investments come with lower returns. I don't know where the idea that free markets require perfect information comes from. As for monopolies, the historical ones are ones set up and enforced by the government.
        ncmncm 4y ago
        Free markets need management to continue existing at all. When one gets to a monopoly or oligopoly, it's not a market anymore, so isn't counted. Monopoly is the natural end state of an unregulated market.
        WalterBright 4y ago
        Name a monopoly in the US not put in place by the government. Historical or contemporary.
        Retric 4y ago
        Standard Oil, plenty of others like Microsoft are more arguable but standard oil simply out competed and then bought up the competition.
        WalterBright 4y ago
    - cycomanic 4y ago
      That's a pretty bold claim not backed up by any evidence and I can think of numerous counter examples. So if you make such a claim I you really make a bit of an effort to support it.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        How about what happened to China when they switched from a centrally planned socialist economy to a free market based economy? Or look at the divergence of the fortunes of North & South Korea after the Korean War? The evidence is everywhere, and very strong.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        Name a couple counter examples. No evidence? It's all around you. The US for mostly free market. It's done spectacularly well. For communism, how about the USSR, N. Korea, etc. They're not hard to find. Do you think they did well? I read somewhere that N. Koreans were 4 inches shorter than their southern neighbors. Does that sound like hard over socialism is a success? Why is it that every country and society that tried collective farms starved, and sometimes resorted to cannibalism? The Pilgrims tried collective farming for their first year. They starved. Jamestown tried collective farms. They starved. The Israeli Kibbutzen are propped up by the government, as they cannot produce enough food. Kansas was called the "Breadbasket of the Soviet Union." And on and on. I saw on the news the other day an interview with a fellow trying to get in the US via the southern border. He has nothing. He spent 4 months getting from Cuba to that border. What would motivate someone to do that? Triumphant socialism in Cuba?
        cycomanic 4y ago
        Your statement was: "Free markets, however, have the wonderful property that the closer one gets to them, the better they work!" and you bring up the US compared to North Korea. That doesn't support your point. You simply showed that a market that is freer than NK works better, that doesn't mean that a market that is freer than the US would also work better than the US, or that the US is the global maximum. Europe is arguably a less free market than the US but it's by no means clear which one is working better. Somalia ruled by the warlords was a freer market but nobody was emigrating from the US to Somalia.
    - adrianN 4y ago
      That strongly depends on your definition of "better".
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        How about average height? Check out the US figures for the 19th century. Height turns out to be a very good proxy of prosperity.
        ncmncm 4y ago
        The Netherlands have better height. It is not genetic: they didn't, historically. In the US it is decreasing. And, shall we compare infant mortality figures? How about life expectancy? Europe does better than the US on all but mean income, which is skewed by billionaires. Having more billionaires does not favor your argument.
        WalterBright 4y ago
        Infant mortality measurement varies because different countries have different measures of what constitutes a baby. The US tries very hard to save preemies, and those failures are considered infant mortality. Other countries don't, calling them miscarriages. It's a moot point anyway, as infant mortality has declined to statistical noise level in all the first world countries. Life expectancy: America has a big problem with obesity, which is a side effect of prosperity. Obesity negatively influences life expectancy. Income: income needs to be expressed in terms of Purchasing Power Parity. Besides, what evidence do you have that this is skewed by billionaires? I'll stick with average height. It's a pretty good indicator of a prosperous country, up until the genetic potential is reached. As for the Dutch, having traveled in Holland, they appear to have a culture of more healthy food. It's their choice, and this choice is available to Americans, too. Nobody makes Americans drink soda pop all day.
        ncmncm 4y ago
        Move goalposts, much? Declining average height indicates something real. And, American obesity, and (more to the point) prevalence of metabolic disorder causing it, is not a product of prosperity. It is, ultimately, a product of dysfunctional government, with a consequence of falling prosperity.
    - pjc50 4y ago
      This is a "content free dismissal" that gets re-litigated on HN every week. If you don't have something new or interesting to say about it, just don't.
- jandrese 4y ago
  Not always. Markets are a poor choice when the barriers to entry are high or when the product is mandatory for life so people can't reasonably elect to not buy it or cut back significantly on their use. This is why we don't put municipal water on the free market, and why Texas can't keep the lights on. This is why no sane country would try to distribute healthcare on a free market.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    > when the product is mandatory for life Would you say food is in that category? The free market is the only system that has ever provided a consistent food surplus. The US, with its free market, became the first country with food security and you can see it in the statistics - the average height of Americans increased throughout the 19th century, peaking out around WW2. > why we don't put municipal water on the free market Instead we have water intensive almonds being grown in an arid area undergoing a record drought, alongside the government blocking desalination plants (California) > why Texas can't keep the lights on Texas is undergoing a record heat wave. Rolling blackouts are predicted this summer for California. > no sane country would try to distribute healthcare on a free market Health care in the US was cheap before the government got involved in it.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - pilom 4y ago
      > Health care in the US was cheap before the government got involved in it. Only for those who were healthy and had employer provided insurance. Everyone else either went without or paid through the nose or was dropped as soon as they actually needed services. Healthcare premiums are more expensive now because the insurance is a much better product for many people.
      - quantumwannabe 4y ago
        You don't know the history of health care in the United States. Before the government got involved by instituting wage limits during WWII, there was no such thing as "employer provided insurance".

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

WalterBright 4y ago

> There are other forms of competition that work better. There certainly are. The one that works best is the free market.

ncmncm 4y ago
There is no such thing as a free market.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  You're right, perfection is never possible. Free markets, however, have the wonderful property that the closer one gets to them, the better they work! On the other hand, the closer one gets to socialism, the worse it works :-(
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    It just means markets have to be managed. Better management makes better markets, but politics only tolerates so much management merit. Socialism is politics.
  - Retric 4y ago
    The issue is free markets require more than just open competition, they need zero market coercions such as monopolies or misinformation, while also being free from governmental interference. That’s clearly a direct contradiction. So basically nobody is actually promoting free markets, they all have their own spin to get past these contradictions.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      Free markets do not require perfect information. Every transaction made has an element of risk in it - the risk is factored into the price. Buying a used car is a perfect example. They cost more at a dealer than from a private party - because people will pay more for lower risk. Another example is name brands costing more than generic items. Another is less risky investments come with lower returns. I don't know where the idea that free markets require perfect information comes from. As for monopolies, the historical ones are ones set up and enforced by the government.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        Free markets need management to continue existing at all. When one gets to a monopoly or oligopoly, it's not a market anymore, so isn't counted. Monopoly is the natural end state of an unregulated market.
        WalterBright 4y ago
        Name a monopoly in the US not put in place by the government. Historical or contemporary.
        Retric 4y ago
        Standard Oil, plenty of others like Microsoft are more arguable but standard oil simply out competed and then bought up the competition.
        WalterBright 4y ago
  - cycomanic 4y ago
    That's a pretty bold claim not backed up by any evidence and I can think of numerous counter examples. So if you make such a claim I you really make a bit of an effort to support it.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      How about what happened to China when they switched from a centrally planned socialist economy to a free market based economy? Or look at the divergence of the fortunes of North & South Korea after the Korean War? The evidence is everywhere, and very strong.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      Name a couple counter examples. No evidence? It's all around you. The US for mostly free market. It's done spectacularly well. For communism, how about the USSR, N. Korea, etc. They're not hard to find. Do you think they did well? I read somewhere that N. Koreans were 4 inches shorter than their southern neighbors. Does that sound like hard over socialism is a success? Why is it that every country and society that tried collective farms starved, and sometimes resorted to cannibalism? The Pilgrims tried collective farming for their first year. They starved. Jamestown tried collective farms. They starved. The Israeli Kibbutzen are propped up by the government, as they cannot produce enough food. Kansas was called the "Breadbasket of the Soviet Union." And on and on. I saw on the news the other day an interview with a fellow trying to get in the US via the southern border. He has nothing. He spent 4 months getting from Cuba to that border. What would motivate someone to do that? Triumphant socialism in Cuba?
      - cycomanic 4y ago
        Your statement was: "Free markets, however, have the wonderful property that the closer one gets to them, the better they work!" and you bring up the US compared to North Korea. That doesn't support your point. You simply showed that a market that is freer than NK works better, that doesn't mean that a market that is freer than the US would also work better than the US, or that the US is the global maximum. Europe is arguably a less free market than the US but it's by no means clear which one is working better. Somalia ruled by the warlords was a freer market but nobody was emigrating from the US to Somalia.
  - adrianN 4y ago
    That strongly depends on your definition of "better".
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      How about average height? Check out the US figures for the 19th century. Height turns out to be a very good proxy of prosperity.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        The Netherlands have better height. It is not genetic: they didn't, historically. In the US it is decreasing. And, shall we compare infant mortality figures? How about life expectancy? Europe does better than the US on all but mean income, which is skewed by billionaires. Having more billionaires does not favor your argument.
        WalterBright 4y ago
        Infant mortality measurement varies because different countries have different measures of what constitutes a baby. The US tries very hard to save preemies, and those failures are considered infant mortality. Other countries don't, calling them miscarriages. It's a moot point anyway, as infant mortality has declined to statistical noise level in all the first world countries. Life expectancy: America has a big problem with obesity, which is a side effect of prosperity. Obesity negatively influences life expectancy. Income: income needs to be expressed in terms of Purchasing Power Parity. Besides, what evidence do you have that this is skewed by billionaires? I'll stick with average height. It's a pretty good indicator of a prosperous country, up until the genetic potential is reached. As for the Dutch, having traveled in Holland, they appear to have a culture of more healthy food. It's their choice, and this choice is available to Americans, too. Nobody makes Americans drink soda pop all day.
        ncmncm 4y ago
        Move goalposts, much? Declining average height indicates something real. And, American obesity, and (more to the point) prevalence of metabolic disorder causing it, is not a product of prosperity. It is, ultimately, a product of dysfunctional government, with a consequence of falling prosperity.
  - pjc50 4y ago
    This is a "content free dismissal" that gets re-litigated on HN every week. If you don't have something new or interesting to say about it, just don't.
jandrese 4y ago
Not always. Markets are a poor choice when the barriers to entry are high or when the product is mandatory for life so people can't reasonably elect to not buy it or cut back significantly on their use. This is why we don't put municipal water on the free market, and why Texas can't keep the lights on. This is why no sane country would try to distribute healthcare on a free market.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  > when the product is mandatory for life Would you say food is in that category? The free market is the only system that has ever provided a consistent food surplus. The US, with its free market, became the first country with food security and you can see it in the statistics - the average height of Americans increased throughout the 19th century, peaking out around WW2. > why we don't put municipal water on the free market Instead we have water intensive almonds being grown in an arid area undergoing a record drought, alongside the government blocking desalination plants (California) > why Texas can't keep the lights on Texas is undergoing a record heat wave. Rolling blackouts are predicted this summer for California. > no sane country would try to distribute healthcare on a free market Health care in the US was cheap before the government got involved in it.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - pilom 4y ago
    > Health care in the US was cheap before the government got involved in it. Only for those who were healthy and had employer provided insurance. Everyone else either went without or paid through the nose or was dropped as soon as they actually needed services. Healthcare premiums are more expensive now because the insurance is a much better product for many people.
    - quantumwannabe 4y ago
      You don't know the history of health care in the United States. Before the government got involved by instituting wage limits during WWII, there was no such thing as "employer provided insurance".