Market rates for electricity do not exist in a country where the power grid is controlled by communists. Given that most countries subsidize electricity consumption the same basic issue applies.
Looking beyond naive libertarianism, there is the bigger question of waste and whether people are entitled to consume a resource regardless of the application. Historically efficiency was seen as a virtue, but modern attitudes are more open to waste. It’s a fair question to ask whether this is an aberration.
>Market rates for electricity do not exist in a country where the power grid is controlled by communists. Given that most countries subsidize electricity consumption the same basic issue applies.
Yes, that's a problem in my view. Observing that it is the status quo doesn't rationalize it or further prohibitions to defend price controls.
I'm not sure if you would regard it as naive, but price controls are widely regarded as inefficient distortions of a market.
I live in Québec. We have state run electricty, which turns a profit and isn't subsidized. It's by far the cheapest in North America, and the essentially the cheapest unsubsidized energy in the world. The grid is also 99.9% renewable (everywhere except for some islands)
So the idea that price controls and nationalization somehow causes inefficiency in this case is just a tale economists tell themselves. In the real world, all of the most successful energy grids use those tools.
If Quebec is running a profitable business, there's no argument in what I wrote?
The most I could say is that there may be unseen costs of nationalization. I.e. it could be cheaper still if privatized, but that is further afield from the discussion. In HN parlance I suppose I could demand that you provide evidence and sources proving the same power stations wouldn't operate more efficiently under private ownership, but I don't think that would be fair or friendly.
Profitable for the province is different from profitable for a business.
Even if hydro itself isn't making more revenue than its direct costs, if it increases the tax revenues for the government by better uses of the electricity, the government is still making a profit
There are unseen benefits to nationalization too, not just costs
Replying due to edit : you can claim that a free market could be cheaper. But there are free energy markets right next to Quebec, and costs are around twice as high, so you are arguing against reality.
Hydropower is not geographically unique, there are many US states (and Chinese provinces) which use mainly hydropower.
If you think that I am overextending the term free market, then you must agree that there are no energy free markets? There are two options here. Either there are, and they are all suboptimal to at least some state run solutions, or they don't exist, in which case my argument still applies.
Yes, many places have hydropower. Some have more than others. There are also population, consumption concerns relative to the supply. The Wikipedia article notes that the Quebecois authorities subsidize aluminum smelters with a goal of job creation. Perhaps the market price could be even cheaper without this subsidy?
Electricity markets are generally highly regulated, public-private partnerships or outright nationalized. I don't see a dispute here or an argument.
Observing that something is commonplace isn't a rationalization of the efficiency or morality of the practice.
>you are arguing against reality.
This isn't helpful. Different individuals have different observations, experiences, perceptions and thus opinions. That's healthy. It is the source of discussion. Would it be helpful if I characterized this turn of phrase as you arguing for an exclusive license on "reality"?
No, I don't think that would advance the discussion at all, but it would be equivalent to what you've offered in my view.
