3 ms·

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I didn't get to bid in an auction. Providers bid until they had enough then the price was fixed based on the most expens

by econ 2y ago

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I didn't get to bid in an auction. Providers bid until they had enough then the price was fixed based on the most expensive source. We also designated a windy chunk of government land next to my city to private wind energy. Besides land it needed a bit of subsidee to spin them up. Big turbines happened that provide enough power to run the city. Not that the city didn't have the money to do it themselves. Its dwellers could also easily afford it. That's just not how things work around here. Mysterious actors blew up some pipeline some place in the north and the highest bit went up dramatically. It didn't fail, people just couldn't pay their bills anymore. The market was very good at increasing profit when demand was larger than supply. One could imagine worse circumstances with a larger effect.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> The market was very good at increasing profit when demand was larger than supply. That's what it's supposed to do. Then in the absence of regulatory barriers to entry, new suppliers enter the market to capture those profits, until the profits aren't so big anymore because there are more suppliers. One of the things that messes people up here is that they want consistency but don't want to pay for it. You have a competitive market which is providing low prices until there is a supply disruption. Then prices are temporarily high. If you wanted to you could have bought insurance or futures etc. so that you would always pay a consistent price, but then you'd be paying a higher price than the market on the days when supply is good so that you could pay a lower price when supply is low. People then complain about that too, but those are your options; if you pick the "don't buy insurance" one then you're exposed to events, but you should be the one who gets to choose. And maybe if you're poor you don't want the insurance, what you want is to have the lower price most of the time and cut back your usage when the price is high. But either way, that should be something you get to decide instead of something somebody decides for you.
- econ 2y ago
  Yes, markets are suppose to kick you when you are down. My gut says it is like needing for example a car. You could rent or lease or you could buy one in cash on on credit. Each choice makes sense to someone. If it is to be a collective choice/deal it should be cheaper and I see no reason why it can't offer the same options. We have this weird tendency to shove all collective arrangements in governments boots where we know the outcome will be something stupid, turn into something ridiculous or both. I really want to see gov processes strictly defined. Then we can have the government set up entirely independent bodies that strictly follow their charter. Ideally it pays no taxes, no one works there, no one owns it. I might even like blockchain for this purpose. We want 1234 new lease contracts for 2026, any company may bid, customers press accept. The one most accepted gets to provide the [proverbial] cars. It seems doable.

by econ 2y ago

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

> The market was very good at increasing profit when demand was larger than supply. That's what it's supposed to do. Then in the absence of regulatory barriers to entry, new suppliers enter the market to capture those profits, until the profits aren't so big anymore because there are more suppliers. One of the things that messes people up here is that they want consistency but don't want to pay for it. You have a competitive market which is providing low prices until there is a supply disruption. Then prices are temporarily high. If you wanted to you could have bought insurance or futures etc. so that you would always pay a consistent price, but then you'd be paying a higher price than the market on the days when supply is good so that you could pay a lower price when supply is low. People then complain about that too, but those are your options; if you pick the "don't buy insurance" one then you're exposed to events, but you should be the one who gets to choose. And maybe if you're poor you don't want the insurance, what you want is to have the lower price most of the time and cut back your usage when the price is high. But either way, that should be something you get to decide instead of something somebody decides for you.

econ 2y ago
Yes, markets are suppose to kick you when you are down. My gut says it is like needing for example a car. You could rent or lease or you could buy one in cash on on credit. Each choice makes sense to someone. If it is to be a collective choice/deal it should be cheaper and I see no reason why it can't offer the same options. We have this weird tendency to shove all collective arrangements in governments boots where we know the outcome will be something stupid, turn into something ridiculous or both. I really want to see gov processes strictly defined. Then we can have the government set up entirely independent bodies that strictly follow their charter. Ideally it pays no taxes, no one works there, no one owns it. I might even like blockchain for this purpose. We want 1234 new lease contracts for 2026, any company may bid, customers press accept. The one most accepted gets to provide the [proverbial] cars. It seems doable.