Re: [OPE] Electricity problems

Paul C.: "This misses the point." The surcharge I am referring to, does not pretend to deal with the reduction of energy facilities. As I just told to Patrick Bond, this surcharge would indeed reduce the amount of the service consumed and produced, pushing the prices up.   The specific devise in my two-level solution that opposes the tendency of capitalist electricity market to reduce energy facilities, is the harmonization of the expansion of the production effectively sold off and the incentives of the socialist production managers.   Kind regards,A. Agafonow ________________________________ De: Paul Cockshott <wpc@dcs.gla.ac.uk> Para: Outline on Political Economy mailing list <ope@lists.csuchico.edu> Enviado: martes, 28 de octubre, 2008 16:07:03 Asunto: Re: [OPE] Electricity problems This misses the point. The sharp rise in prices over the last year is because there was no forward planning to install new nuclear facilities. These are expensive in capital terms and the firms benefit more from the rise in prices which occurs if capacity falls short of demand. This is in stark contrast with France where the electricity industry is still state owned and has adequate capacity. Alejandro Agafonow wrote: > > We can use a surcharge penalizing electricity consumption over average in very category we devise for classifying consumers: industrial, residential, etc. This is a political decision that might complement quasi-market. > > But the working of quasi-market is very different from the capitalist market. It seems that you keep judging the former one with the criteria only applicable to the last one. > > A. Agafonow > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *De:* Dave Zachariah <davez@kth.se> > *Para:* Outline on Political Economy mailing list <ope@lists.csuchico.edu> > *Enviado:* lunes, 27 de octubre, 2008 19:40:24 > *Asunto:* Re: [OPE] Electricity problems > > on 2008-10-27 11:07 Alejandro Agafonow wrote: > > But arises another problem with services particularly sensitive to > > environmental constraints. Since consumers are going to pay lower > > prices they are going to be willing to waste electricity, leaving > > bulbs, computers, TV’s, etc. on! > > > > > > > > In addition to Paul's comments, isn't this yet another reason why there > ought to be public ownership and planning of vital infrastructure? It is > mistake to think that market mechanisms can always solve resource > allocation problems better than centralised information coordination and > planning mechanisms. > > //Dave Z > _______________________________________________ > ope mailing list > ope@lists.csuchico.edu <mailto:ope@lists.csuchico.edu> > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > ope mailing list > ope@lists.csuchico.edu > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope >  _______________________________________________ ope mailing list ope@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Wed Oct 29 07:35:32 2008