3 ms·

> It funnels huge fees to wall street and creates opportunities for financial manipulation. It is Clinton-era neoliberal grift. I thought the fiasco of energy d

by klabb3 4y ago

> It funnels huge fees to wall street and creates opportunities for financial manipulation. It is Clinton-era neoliberal grift. I thought the fiasco of energy de-regulation made people a bit more realistic about inserting Wall Street into the middle of everything[...] Not saying you're wrong, but how does Wall Street capitalize from this? It looks more like a government money grab to me (if you want the cynical take), since the implementation is quite literally a tax. That said, totally agree it's also an energy infrastructure problem – that governments have been incredibly stupid and naive with the last couple of decades.

rsj_hn 4y ago
Wall street can make money by charging financial service fees for: - market making - organizing sales of credits - organizing purchase of credits - selling hedging and insurance products so firms have some guarantees to support long term planning That's in the "honest grift" category, then all sorts of nonsense can happen under the category of market manipulation, such as Enron style buying up credits to cause a price spike, or denying credits to competitors, etc. > That said, totally agree it's also an energy infrastructure problem – that governments have been incredibly stupid and naive with the last couple of decades. Exactly. Build more power plants, connect them to the grid, take older plants offline. No need to yell at people or tax basic human needs like transportation or electrical usage. For ships, the government can fund research on alternate fuels for ships, and the private sector can be brought in with research prizes and grants, etc. But the idea that a shipper -- which doesn't even build any ships -- is going to somehow innovate to create new shipbuilding designs and get into the business of building non-fossil fuel consuming ships -- doesn't make a lot of sense. All that will happen is that shipping becomes more expensive, which has terrible negative externalities. Only the strongest market fundamentalists want to leave basic R&D and long term investment to the magic of the free market.

by klabb3 4y ago

rsj_hn 4y ago

Wall street can make money by charging financial service fees for: - market making - organizing sales of credits - organizing purchase of credits - selling hedging and insurance products so firms have some guarantees to support long term planning That's in the "honest grift" category, then all sorts of nonsense can happen under the category of market manipulation, such as Enron style buying up credits to cause a price spike, or denying credits to competitors, etc. > That said, totally agree it's also an energy infrastructure problem – that governments have been incredibly stupid and naive with the last couple of decades. Exactly. Build more power plants, connect them to the grid, take older plants offline. No need to yell at people or tax basic human needs like transportation or electrical usage. For ships, the government can fund research on alternate fuels for ships, and the private sector can be brought in with research prizes and grants, etc. But the idea that a shipper -- which doesn't even build any ships -- is going to somehow innovate to create new shipbuilding designs and get into the business of building non-fossil fuel consuming ships -- doesn't make a lot of sense. All that will happen is that shipping becomes more expensive, which has terrible negative externalities. Only the strongest market fundamentalists want to leave basic R&D and long term investment to the magic of the free market.