Semantics, it is an important argument. California didn't employ a free market, and a free market is not responsible for the current problem. If you wish to pretend something that is clear enough, is in fact something else, you just do a disservice to the truth.
Re: "Energy is a bad candidate for free market access, because it is not easily 'importable', cannot be stockpiled, has high entry cost, and a long lead-time for increasing capacity."
Free market theory in fact doesn't require the things you suggest here. Having suppliers who manipulate is well within the theory of free markets, that will still in fact work. But, you can think Energy is a bad candidate for a free market if you wish, but mainly I just would prefer that if California has not tried it(and again,it hasn't), that you stop using it as the label for the cause of the problems out there.
Dan B |
