5 ms·

Not neccesarily. They could choose to implement a two-tier system for pricing. One system for internal use (within Finland), and only making the rest available

by idle76 4y ago

Not neccesarily. They could choose to implement a two-tier system for pricing. One system for internal use (within Finland), and only making the rest available for export (and thus Europe) after the finnish needs have been covered. The full market integration isn't a natural law, as some free-market enthusiasts would have you believe.

moogly 4y ago
It isn't a natural law, but it is an EU law. A two-tiered system would also need EU on board, since currently such a system is considered anti-competitive for some reason (unclear to me why).
- idle76 4y ago
  Because the EU thinks it's ok to have an advantage with lower wages, but not on cheap electricity. If they didn't, they would have made regulation that either normalised wages throughout the EU (VERY unpopular with the inhabitants of northern Europe) or allowed nations to demand that all wages must be paid locally in accordance to local laws or tariffs. This is not allowed today, as it would make work migration a lot less beneficial for capitalists importing workers from eastern Europe.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
No, but it is more efficient. This recent crisis has unleashed a weird strain of anti-capitalist crony-capitalism. People angry that "their" energy is being sold to "other people" so we should do X, where X obviously makes them poorer, but "sell X to other people at a profit and redistribute the profits to the whole nation making everyone richer" is simply considered iconcievable because it would affect the concentrated profits of crony capitalists and generally make people aware that they have democratic power to do things like that. Same deal as with carbon taxes.
- idle76 4y ago
  Yes, but why should we pay the price when it is our natural resources being sent abroad? Why is it not allowed (due to EU/EEC-regulation) to have a competitive advantage on energy prices when it is allowed to have an advantage on for example lower wages. Plus, transport of electricity is not efficient. You lose a lot in the cables. It would be better to transport the factories that need it to where the electricity is generated. And, the backlash is because of what is perceieved as poor energy politics from the central european powers. Making oneself dependent on fossil energy Russia while decommisioning nuclear is madness when trying to reduce carbon emissions. Northern europe is also much more based on the use of electricity for heating than the rest of europe, so it hits them a lot harder when prices skyrocket. The result is much more use of wood for heating, which in turn increases air pollution.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    > but why should we pay the price when it is our natural resources being sent abroad Because price signals are important and useful tools. But note, I'm not suggesting you "pay" the price. I'm suggesting the "others" pay the price and then you use that money to make your life better, with greater impact than you'd get by just capping prices and using all your resources wastefully locally. The same reason you have a job and then pay people to do various tasks that you could in theory do yourself. It makes your life richer.
    - idle76 4y ago
      You fail to see my point. Cheap electricity is our only competitive advantage (well, in addition to a well educated population). We cannot compete on labor wages, which are much higher here than pretty much anywhere in the world. If we give away that advantage for shortsighted profit instead of using it to build our own industry, we will only strengthen central europe's industries, while we go back to being a resource economy.
      - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
        You don't need to have a competitive advantage to gain from trade. You don't even need a comparative advantage. You think that trading electricity to the rest of Europe will let them take your manufacturing industry. So your plan is to pointlessly increase Europe's electricity prices by breaking the market mechanisms that allow trade? That is not a good plan. It's not a good plan if you want to support local industry and it's not a good plan if you don't. It's just not a good plan. At best, you could claim that there's nothing else you can do that would work, and so this bad plan is better than all the other worse options but frankly it's not a very convincing case.
cinntaile 4y ago
This goes against everything the EU stands for so that's not happening.
- Gud 4y ago
  Just curious, but why does the EU necessarily have such a fundamentalist view on free markets?
  - cinntaile 4y ago
    I simply don't know enough about all the reasons and philosophies behind the policy decisions to give you an adequate answer.

by idle76 4y ago

moogly 4y ago

It isn't a natural law, but it is an EU law. A two-tiered system would also need EU on board, since currently such a system is considered anti-competitive for some reason (unclear to me why).

idle76 4y ago
Because the EU thinks it's ok to have an advantage with lower wages, but not on cheap electricity. If they didn't, they would have made regulation that either normalised wages throughout the EU (VERY unpopular with the inhabitants of northern Europe) or allowed nations to demand that all wages must be paid locally in accordance to local laws or tariffs. This is not allowed today, as it would make work migration a lot less beneficial for capitalists importing workers from eastern Europe.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

No, but it is more efficient. This recent crisis has unleashed a weird strain of anti-capitalist crony-capitalism. People angry that "their" energy is being sold to "other people" so we should do X, where X obviously makes them poorer, but "sell X to other people at a profit and redistribute the profits to the whole nation making everyone richer" is simply considered iconcievable because it would affect the concentrated profits of crony capitalists and generally make people aware that they have democratic power to do things like that. Same deal as with carbon taxes.

idle76 4y ago
Yes, but why should we pay the price when it is our natural resources being sent abroad? Why is it not allowed (due to EU/EEC-regulation) to have a competitive advantage on energy prices when it is allowed to have an advantage on for example lower wages. Plus, transport of electricity is not efficient. You lose a lot in the cables. It would be better to transport the factories that need it to where the electricity is generated. And, the backlash is because of what is perceieved as poor energy politics from the central european powers. Making oneself dependent on fossil energy Russia while decommisioning nuclear is madness when trying to reduce carbon emissions. Northern europe is also much more based on the use of electricity for heating than the rest of europe, so it hits them a lot harder when prices skyrocket. The result is much more use of wood for heating, which in turn increases air pollution.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  > but why should we pay the price when it is our natural resources being sent abroad Because price signals are important and useful tools. But note, I'm not suggesting you "pay" the price. I'm suggesting the "others" pay the price and then you use that money to make your life better, with greater impact than you'd get by just capping prices and using all your resources wastefully locally. The same reason you have a job and then pay people to do various tasks that you could in theory do yourself. It makes your life richer.
  - idle76 4y ago
    You fail to see my point. Cheap electricity is our only competitive advantage (well, in addition to a well educated population). We cannot compete on labor wages, which are much higher here than pretty much anywhere in the world. If we give away that advantage for shortsighted profit instead of using it to build our own industry, we will only strengthen central europe's industries, while we go back to being a resource economy.
    - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      You don't need to have a competitive advantage to gain from trade. You don't even need a comparative advantage. You think that trading electricity to the rest of Europe will let them take your manufacturing industry. So your plan is to pointlessly increase Europe's electricity prices by breaking the market mechanisms that allow trade? That is not a good plan. It's not a good plan if you want to support local industry and it's not a good plan if you don't. It's just not a good plan. At best, you could claim that there's nothing else you can do that would work, and so this bad plan is better than all the other worse options but frankly it's not a very convincing case.

cinntaile 4y ago

This goes against everything the EU stands for so that's not happening.

Gud 4y ago
Just curious, but why does the EU necessarily have such a fundamentalist view on free markets?
- cinntaile 4y ago
  I simply don't know enough about all the reasons and philosophies behind the policy decisions to give you an adequate answer.