Great discussion and thanks for having Yanis as a guest - his systems view, macroeconomic, and game theory background is amazing and hopefully we can figure out ways to make our systems sustainable and workable for all people.
Agree with Yanis. Trying to privatise such massive an hugely important facility like energy or health is just going to impede social benefits with the profit motive. In terms of public services providing innovation please remember that Alan Turing, the father of the modern computer, worked for the Post Office.
Exactly, and the innovations that any private firm might actually conjure up are lost on anyone they price out anyway. Sacrificing the comfort, or safety, of the few so that well-heeled customers can afford slightly cleaner or efficient energy is a pretty sick way of ensuring a better future for us all. Not only that, but the push to innovate generally presupposes a certain amount of competition -- which doesn't exist if these energy companies already have a captive market. So if we're going to stagnate anyway, why not let all in on it the benefits until we can achieve the kind of "market restructuring" the host suggests is necessary? Oh and nice looking dog.
Excellent discussion gentlemen. To my mind the foundational premise should be Need/Want based. Want fullfillment , by human nature, quickly outstrips need fulfillment, once the Individuals needs are met. And from there, many seek to 'Corner' Resources over and against others, effectively 'enslaving' them. Also problematic, becomes the passion to Strip resources Brutally, at high speed with intent of 'Eternal' procurrement (a grotesque indulgent fantasy at best). Very quickly gaps develop into Haves/Have Nots of a Class based society, upon which all forms of Exploitation are affirmed. Wants, Resource allocated, should not be allowed by a society to outstrip the basic needs fullfilment of its citizens or to work against a Life Giving Biosphere. As well, the idea of Endless Possesion/Consumption is a Contortion which mutilates and abuses the "Social Contract" This kind of Stress and Destruction CANNOT be practised if we are to fullfill potential evolution of our species. However, it is my fear in the dark recesses of my own humanity, that we may not be able to maximize an Escape Velocity sufficient to leave our Greed in the rear view mirror. Regards, Viet vet/Ecologist VFP
Phenomenal interview as always, was looking forward to these two big egos having a discussion and I was not disappointed! As I’ve said before and as you mentioned, video is soooo important to better understand the dynamics, I really could feel you and Yanis having lots of fun while disagreeing but also agreeing on a lot! I think a one-day workshop with you two (and Greg Jackson) in one room working on an ideal electricity system would be absolutely epic! I would pay to watch that on a live stream!!! One point that was only touched upon but not explicitly talked about is, where does competition actually happen? Just ask yourself, what is the difference between SSE, EDF or RWE running a 600MW gas-fired power plant? Maybe one does it with a 35 man (and woman) team. And the other needs 37. So lets say 200k in labor costs difference. This is absolutely nothing compared to the fuel costs. The competition that is responsible for the great technology advances is actually in the manufacturers of the power generation equipment. It is Siemens Gamesa and Vestas one-upping each other on the biggest rotor and biggest generator for offshore wind generators. It is (was) the fight between Mitsubishi, GE and Siemens on getting 1%-point higher efficiency of their gas-turbines each generation. As Michael rightly pointed out, there are special skills in developing generation projects, and there are definitely good and bad ways to procure equipment and manage the construction. However, those skills could be outsourced or just properly done by a state-owned power generation Co. I think at the end the only place where innovation can come from (aside from the equipment manufacturers) is companies like Octopus who then optimize the use of the electricity if that electricity is sometime in scare supply. Arguably though, Greg could just head a department at the National Generation Co which is responsible for demand side optimization hard and software and you might get similar results as what Octopus was doing. On second thought, seeing how Octpus is pushing heat pumps, and seeing how much of government in the UK (and Germany) don’t understand heat pumps, maybe it is good for Greg to not be a bureaucrat…. Again, the more I think about it, a (in person) meeting between Yanis, Michael and Greg would be just absolutely mind-blowingly epic….
Thanks Wookoo, glad you liked the episode. I would pay to listen to Greg Jackson and Yanis Varoufakis debating electricity markets, technology and innovation myself. I must say, I squirted 15 year old Glenfarclas single malt through my nose at the idea of Greg as head of department at the CEGB!
Yanis is correct here; markets are good for some things and not for others. The production and distribution of energy is included precisely in the latter category. Forcing middlemen at every step into the system - all of whom must demand their cut - in order to simulate a market will require future, more technically advanced generations to fully appreciate the absurdity and inefficiency of this phenomenon (like we can look back now at the true absurdity of mesmerism despite even people like Alfred Wallace falling for the nonsense at the time). Assuming we don't blow ourselves up in the meanwhile. Anyway, I find it humorous Michael's unstated implication that bright people cannot be hired by the publicly owned utility (or perhaps intelligence is created by energy markets).
As Michael Hudson would say, the natural monopolies (electricity, water, sanitation, etc.) should be protected as a public good/right ... and ideally things like roads, education, and healthcare as well,,, providing for the basis of a sound society, an equitable foundation, and then the games of chance, fame or fortune, capitalism, markets ... whatever it may be, can ride on top of that.
Yes, Yanis. Spot on. We don't need all of this "control your thermostat from your phone" crap. UK households' energy prices have just DOUBLED when we've seen a huge increase in millionaire and billionaire wealth. That's the innovative thing that I care about. The current economic system is destroying the world.
Best episode in a while, finally a polarised debate, I missed that. Managed to listen to the whole thing despite how irritating I found listening to the nonsense of Varoufakis' pseudo analysis. Proposing both a centralised and a decentralised energy system in the same interview was the best example of doublethink I have witnessed in a while. The spiel on EDF is pure comedy! One sentence after the other putting EDF both as an example of technology innovator and "profiteer" at the expense of other countries' nationalisation programmes... divine.. Can't wait to hear his populist thoughts around EDF's nuclear (centralised) programme. Thanks Michael for this episode!
Yanis is right. In China electricity is provided by a national owned company and it works quite well. The price is cheap and it functions stably. Internet is provided by national owned companies as well, but you can choose among several. I used to live in the U.S. and internet companies there is terrible. It took forever for ATT or Time Warner to set up my internet.
If gas sets the price there is no competition. Germany that uses a lot of gas does not have to compete with Spain that uses a lot of renewables and little gas. Prices should be set in each country as average cost plus small margin and import and exports at the maximum price on any county in Europe. This would favor competition.
We in Telangana State in India have government owned coal mines, power generation units, solar power (private) and hydro (government owned and managed) and with reforms we have corporatised structures of generation companies distribution companies etc. We subsidize power for low i come people and farmers. We also have net meters where we as homes can let home solar units to give power into network. Like Yanis said no big deal.
Let's use South Africa as an example of exactly how disastrous unbridled state monopoly of power supply can turn out to be. Eskom, South Africa's monopoly power generator utility, bulk generates and bulk supplies many of South Africa's municipalities at a discount. There are however some towns and villages that are supplied directly by Eskom. Municipalities then resell their bulk supply to residence within the municipal area at a very much inflated cost. They justify the inflated cost by stating that part of that revenue is used to supply free or discounted electricity to qualifying poor households. Furthermore, the revenue received is used to fund the running of the municipal electrical network. Yes, Eskom only supply up until its substations and from there the municipality is responsible for electrical feed direct to households. It is well known that municipal employees across the board earn greatly elevated wages and salaries than what is earned for the same level of work in the private secure. So what we end up with is works that deliver suboptimal work effort in way of services to the communities. What all of this ends up achieving is run away cost inflation across the entire economy. Strangely those town and villages that are fortunate to receive electricity supply direct from Eskom are not subjected to additional cost hikes imposed by municipalities. So there is a us and them situation in which the exists a potential favoured demand for residential property in areas that are serviced directly by Eskom. So to cut the long story short, we have local government policy that justifies utility (all utilise: water, waste removal, licence fees and electricity) prices inflation because they have a mandate to uplift those previously disadvantaged under Apartheid. All of this on paper sounds wonderfully egalitarian and socially just BUT all that really occurs is that South Africa has created a 'fat cat class' of overpaid underpreforming local government employees that enjoy state subsidised healthcare, sick leave and pensions across all levels of the state workforce. This bloated state sponsored workforce numbered 1.3 million employees in national and provincial government in 2019/20 financial period who received R567 billion in compensation. The state is the largest employer in South Africa. The excess generated by this bloated state apparatus results in a continuous base price inflation within the greater economy. Power being a massive contributor to that inflation. At the end of the day there is less employment within the private sector and an ever growing level of entrenched poverty. Despite the excessively high electrical prices, South African have been suffering power outages to deficits in super generation for almost two decades. So think twice before you hand over the total responsibility to the state to supply electrical services.
I agree the biggest problems of our day is created by all these middlemen. Whether in energy markets, services market, health market, reliant on online middlemen apps, plugins, etc etc etc etc. These middlemen create one thing, useful when we like being less active socially, physically and mentally, and profit immensely and infinitely, by making life impossible without these BS gadgets that need no further work or effort, yet generate and syphon all economy!!
Watch Episode 32 of Cleaning Up with Greg Jackson, CEO of Octopus Energy, here: ua-cam.com/video/x9kHNMyH7bw/v-deo.html Read Yanis' response to Michael's takeaways from the episode here: www.yanisvaroufakis.eu/2022/11/01/should-electricity-markets-be-reformed-or-disbanded-my-debate-with-michael-liebreich-on-cleaning-up/ And Michael's response to Yanis' response (!) here: drive.google.com/file/d/1Ra5-C56VYqfkTI9ylkPtOkcpFncOsTYG/view
And it is wrong at its core. Electricity generation and distribution is in reality quite simple, irrespective of the means of generation. It is massively expensive to build a network and maintain it, but believing it needs private enterprise to 'innovate' such a straightforward system is blind at best.
In India in some states we do have power in public sector. So that some sections like farmers can get free or cheaper power and poor can get cheaper power.
The statements Yanis makes around 43:00 (''not after all singing and dancing'') is surely where the government needs to take the energy market. We need availability, cheap, green and to do it quickly. Innovation around a stable base load and the opportunity to reduce one's own costs, sure......but not at the expense of the basic principles.
A mjor problem is data fragmentation. Whether for or against markets, they cannot intervene in spot situations which occur once every blue moon. These do exist and can down a grid (e.g. unexpected control oscillation, plus other situations) - but they are rare so offer little ongoing $$ incentive for a market, plus may need data from around the grid in "unexpected" places. Traditionally grid stability and protection engineers have thought about these. How can a market sping into existance and correct something unexpected?
im in complete agreement with varoufakis .. this idea that 'innovative clever rich people' are better at managing our common resources and communities is an ideology that has proved itself to be nothing but a free for all for a bunch of greedy egotists ..there is no efficiency from privatization , as we were all told...instead their is catastrophe for the ordinary person .. humanity can and has managed itself in systems of care and we can do it again , perhaps we need to distract the childish billionaires and their entourages and minions with some shiny objects so ordinary people can get on with creating functional communities .. i'm so fed up with patronizing ordinary people and pretending these entitled wealthy have some greater level of value to contribute to society .. its idiotic narcissism
It's crazy how this man, Mr. Liebreich, seems to have invested so much time into NOT seeing any real solution to climate change solely because of ideology, it seems
Ha, ha, somenone's not paying attention. There is a difference between nationalising things you don't understand and solving climate change, my friend.
@@MLiebreich I'd suggest you read "hot money" by Naomi Klein amongst many other books/ research papers in this area so you can begin to understand how capitalism and slowing/reversing climate change are antithetical to each other
The longer something exists, the more exploited/exploitive it becomes. This is the same for national and private industries. Private is naturally exploitive and national naturally exploited. Neither work, therefore the question is: How do we stop the exploited/exploitive in the system
@@zantecarroll4448 this kind of turns nassim taleb on his head ,,, the longer it exists, the more likely it's continued existence ... but also it's probability of exploitation, haha ... the truth is we are in another deep robber baron phase of history, under the guise globalist wishful thinking and greenwashing, etc. more systems failures like the 'great financial crisis', pandemics, natural disasters, supply chain crunches and more are likely before people truly rethink things
India has delivered the ‘boring, etc etc”….Utilities whether power, water, etc need to be publicly owned….Yanis is correct- the ideology of ‘private sector knows it all’ is funded by private sector lobbyist….bailout after bailout of sectors says it all….time stamp-50 onwards says it all…
The way I see it is, if you have publicly (owned by the people) monopolies without shareholders profits removed, profits can be plowed back into making the organisation work more effectively and efficiently, making it affordable for many and reliable, profiteering always injects instability. This is why the Tories are trying to destroy the NHS an organisation paid for the demos (N.I.) by introducing private companies that inject instability.
Say what you will about Yanis’ social views but he simply doesn’t understand enough about the energy industry or is wilfully forgetting or unaware of the history of power systems. To think somehow that a vertically integrated government owned utility that controls all aspects of the electric system could possibly wrangle with, or even could be sufficiently incentivised to deal with the complexities of today’s grid is nonsensical. Yes we ultimately want a simple product, electricity that is always there, but the immense complexity behind providing that product is now far too much for one entity to possibly control adequately. His example of AMAZON, one of the most fundamental examples of rampant capitalism and “privateering” (to use his words) which could only exist because the incentives exists in capitalism and the profits that can be extracted by exploiting your workforce enables such an entity to exist, is somehow something a government entity could ever be is laughable.
Michael, have you eat Chomsky explain what is Regulation Capture? This is the method the the corporations disarm regulation. It’s actually so easy for them to do this. So now we know and have the language to explain why regulation is not the solution we once thought it was.
Transnational political parties, Yanis? You know that we know that is another step toward one-world government, don't you. Though I have learned a lot from your videos, I would not be persuaded to go along with that, ever.
All innovation is done by small companies where a bunch of people cooperate and co-own to come up with a great idea. After that they are purchased by big companies. The idea that innovation happens in privately owned large enterprises is totally bonkers.
yes and dr david graeber pointed out that most of the great innovations were most likely by ordinary women in early human history and ordinary individuals tinkering in their kitchens, drawing rooms, garages and gardens in more recent human history ... then exploited by middlemen who reinvent themselves , with some help from self interested psychophants, as genius's, its such an absurd but popular myth
This idea that the most brilliant people are only motivated by money is frustratingly false...most humans, especially the most curious ones, are motivated by far more important values than the highest salaries... when not in a state of desperation caused by a vicious neoliberal economic system of violence in which they cant afford electricity... there are plenty of brilliant people who would devote their lives to creating effective systems for their communities in return for the much more rewarding value of being part of something greater than themselves and an ordinary living salary ...given the opportunity..its a filter of terrible elitism to see humanity as a mob of idiots rescued by the clever rich kids and or the authoritarian good-father figures. We are not infants, we can associate freely and creatively and cooperate to build systems of care and effective energy systems for communities that foster well being for humanity and all of life. as yanis points out standing in our way are a number of oligarchs.... and their psychophants and a cynicism and complacency and debilitating anxiety deliberately generated by the oligarchs bought media and politicians.
I think I get Yanis idea in juxtaposition with Mike's internet example: probably some innovation did come out of that massive buying of modems, borrowing to create the infrastructure etc. But if the innovation in electricity is as marginal as smart meters and apps that gamify consumption, as well financial bets (marketing too being very much a financial bet), surely it has not earned them the "right" of paying close to zero for their inputs and getting paid max for the output. I don't which genius designed this system anyway (revolving door energy consultants perhaps?), but in a more rational semi-nationalized electricity system then the public would indeed absorb the cost of expensive "system stabilizers" like gas, but would be paying close to zero for half of their energy. I'm only halfway in the discussion, so I don't know to what extent EU "free market" pressures created this mess, when it's obvious there's not enough energy routes to make this a balanced EU-wide market.
Clearly the Interviewer is ideologically biased. He just cannot go beyond his ideology that PRIVATE IS BETTER. We have great systems to deal with complexity. It has nothing to do with private ownership. In fact all of the research is done in the public sphere. The same as Amazon does it. The issue is who owns it? We the people or a single billionaire
agile prices a innovation? my mum allways forced not use the dish machine before nine o clock because its cheaper and that i 20 yrs ago…. in switzerland, where state is running electricity.
I really like Yanis as a thinker and politician, but his entire premise here is wrong. Although the electricity grid is a natural monopoly, electricity generation and retail not. That is why in Europe the unbundling of the electricity sector was implemented: to separate natural monopolies (transmission grid, distribution grid) from competitive markets (electricity generation and retail).
I agree with you on this one, but to be honest, you can't agree a 100% on everything. As a ancap i have to say that Yanis really is a person that provoked me to change my perspectives on so many levels. Don't agree on a lot of stuff he says, but agree a on tons of points he made the last couple of years. Apart from that the man has integrity, balls and a vision that is respectable.
I am amused by the desperate dodging of the point Yanis is making with the Amazon example, pulling out an example of "a different Amazon" that is entirely unrelated to the point which is that the computation problem that supposedly undermines the idea of central planning is very clearly proven immaterial by the real-world existence and functioning of massive companies like Amazon, Walmart...
I alway like discussions with Yanis but he can be incredibly wrong. When you recommend governmentization of a ulitity in this case you are giving it to the people who screwed it up. The change would be only the illusion of progress. The UK is in dire need of good management and stewardship. UK can't manage Brexiit, trade, railroads. And you want to give them Utilities? Tom Nevling
@@dogeared100 The government wrote poor utility contracts. A good contract alows a risk reward margin of 5% to 15% profit. A public ulilty commission would negotiate all circumstances and be proactive. The UK has been totaly reactionary. The US has 50 PUCs one for each state. A couple failures have been California and Texas. Failures there were also management. They didn't prepare for fire and cold weather. You don't manage your house that way.
Back in the day, base load was defined as a engineering requirement. After privatisation, base load, to the financial community, became contracted load.
Great discussion. Take a look at South Africa and then Russia. The link is good engineering. In my experience.
Great discussion and thanks for having Yanis as a guest - his systems view, macroeconomic, and game theory background is amazing and hopefully we can figure out ways to make our systems sustainable and workable for all people.
Yanis is such a clear thinker and such sound concepts….need leaders like him….Thanks for hosting Yanis
Agree with Yanis. Trying to privatise such massive an hugely important facility like energy or health is just going to impede social benefits with the profit motive. In terms of public services providing innovation please remember that Alan Turing, the father of the modern computer, worked for the Post Office.
Exactly, and the innovations that any private firm might actually conjure up are lost on anyone they price out anyway. Sacrificing the comfort, or safety, of the few so that well-heeled customers can afford slightly cleaner or efficient energy is a pretty sick way of ensuring a better future for us all. Not only that, but the push to innovate generally presupposes a certain amount of competition -- which doesn't exist if these energy companies already have a captive market. So if we're going to stagnate anyway, why not let all in on it the benefits until we can achieve the kind of "market restructuring" the host suggests is necessary? Oh and nice looking dog.
Excellent discussion gentlemen.
To my mind the foundational premise should be Need/Want based. Want fullfillment , by human nature, quickly outstrips need fulfillment, once the Individuals needs are met. And from there, many seek to 'Corner' Resources over and against others, effectively 'enslaving' them. Also problematic, becomes the passion to Strip resources Brutally, at high speed with intent of 'Eternal' procurrement (a grotesque indulgent fantasy at best). Very quickly gaps develop into Haves/Have Nots of a Class based society, upon which all forms of Exploitation are affirmed.
Wants, Resource allocated, should not be allowed by a society to outstrip the basic needs fullfilment of its citizens or to work against a Life Giving Biosphere. As well, the idea of Endless Possesion/Consumption is a Contortion which mutilates and abuses the "Social Contract" This kind of Stress and Destruction CANNOT be practised if we are to fullfill potential evolution of our species. However, it is my fear in the dark recesses of my own humanity, that we may not be able to maximize an Escape Velocity sufficient to leave our Greed in the rear view mirror.
Regards, Viet vet/Ecologist VFP
In Poland we have time of day tariffs for electricity. This is my answer to the host’s question: “name one outside of UK”. Poland of all places.
Phenomenal interview as always, was looking forward to these two big egos having a discussion and I was not disappointed! As I’ve said before and as you mentioned, video is soooo important to better understand the dynamics, I really could feel you and Yanis having lots of fun while disagreeing but also agreeing on a lot!
I think a one-day workshop with you two (and Greg Jackson) in one room working on an ideal electricity system would be absolutely epic! I would pay to watch that on a live stream!!!
One point that was only touched upon but not explicitly talked about is, where does competition actually happen?
Just ask yourself, what is the difference between SSE, EDF or RWE running a 600MW gas-fired power plant? Maybe one does it with a 35 man (and woman) team. And the other needs 37. So lets say 200k in labor costs difference. This is absolutely nothing compared to the fuel costs.
The competition that is responsible for the great technology advances is actually in the manufacturers of the power generation equipment. It is Siemens Gamesa and Vestas one-upping each other on the biggest rotor and biggest generator for offshore wind generators. It is (was) the fight between Mitsubishi, GE and Siemens on getting 1%-point higher efficiency of their gas-turbines each generation.
As Michael rightly pointed out, there are special skills in developing generation projects, and there are definitely good and bad ways to procure equipment and manage the construction. However, those skills could be outsourced or just properly done by a state-owned power generation Co.
I think at the end the only place where innovation can come from (aside from the equipment manufacturers) is companies like Octopus who then optimize the use of the electricity if that electricity is sometime in scare supply. Arguably though, Greg could just head a department at the National Generation Co which is responsible for demand side optimization hard and software and you might get similar results as what Octopus was doing.
On second thought, seeing how Octpus is pushing heat pumps, and seeing how much of government in the UK (and Germany) don’t understand heat pumps, maybe it is good for Greg to not be a bureaucrat….
Again, the more I think about it, a (in person) meeting between Yanis, Michael and Greg would be just absolutely mind-blowingly epic….
Thanks Wookoo, glad you liked the episode.
I would pay to listen to Greg Jackson and Yanis Varoufakis debating electricity markets, technology and innovation myself.
I must say, I squirted 15 year old Glenfarclas single malt through my nose at the idea of Greg as head of department at the CEGB!
Very engaging and stimulating discussion. Thank you.
Yanis is correct here; markets are good for some things and not for others. The production and distribution of energy is included precisely in the latter category. Forcing middlemen at every step into the system - all of whom must demand their cut - in order to simulate a market will require future, more technically advanced generations to fully appreciate the absurdity and inefficiency of this phenomenon (like we can look back now at the true absurdity of mesmerism despite even people like Alfred Wallace falling for the nonsense at the time). Assuming we don't blow ourselves up in the meanwhile. Anyway, I find it humorous Michael's unstated implication that bright people cannot be hired by the publicly owned utility (or perhaps intelligence is created by energy markets).
Yanis is spot on
As Michael Hudson would say, the natural monopolies (electricity, water, sanitation, etc.) should be protected as a public good/right ... and ideally things like roads, education, and healthcare as well,,, providing for the basis of a sound society, an equitable foundation, and then the games of chance, fame or fortune, capitalism, markets ... whatever it may be, can ride on top of that.
Yes, Yanis. Spot on. We don't need all of this "control your thermostat from your phone" crap. UK households' energy prices have just DOUBLED when we've seen a huge increase in millionaire and billionaire wealth. That's the innovative thing that I care about. The current economic system is destroying the world.
Behind Yanis there is a beautiful nord stage piano
Yanis is awesome. Especially when he is being unimpressed!!
He does unimpressed extremely well - but about the wrong things!
"The state comes into create a market that fails, and then comes into regulate it. That's madness." Yanis.
Go Yanis! Very calm and rational response to a religious non- believer
Yanis is a national treasure
agreed!
Imo, Michael thinks an earring on the pig turns it into a unicorn.
Great
Best episode in a while, finally a polarised debate, I missed that. Managed to listen to the whole thing despite how irritating I found listening to the nonsense of Varoufakis' pseudo analysis. Proposing both a centralised and a decentralised energy system in the same interview was the best example of doublethink I have witnessed in a while. The spiel on EDF is pure comedy! One sentence after the other putting EDF both as an example of technology innovator and "profiteer" at the expense of other countries' nationalisation programmes... divine.. Can't wait to hear his populist thoughts around EDF's nuclear (centralised) programme. Thanks Michael for this episode!
Yanis is right. In China electricity is provided by a national owned company and it works quite well. The price is cheap and it functions stably. Internet is provided by national owned companies as well, but you can choose among several. I used to live in the U.S. and internet companies there is terrible. It took forever for ATT or Time Warner to set up my internet.
Yanis is so right.
Yes Yanis is right, time to blow up this unfair current system
If gas sets the price there is no competition. Germany that uses a lot of gas does not have to compete with Spain that uses a lot of renewables and little gas. Prices should be set in each country as average cost plus small margin and import and exports at the maximum price on any county in Europe. This would favor competition.
We in Telangana State in India have government owned coal mines, power generation units, solar power (private) and hydro (government owned and managed) and with reforms we have corporatised structures of generation companies distribution companies etc.
We subsidize power for low i come people and farmers.
We also have net meters where we as homes can let home solar units to give power into network.
Like Yanis said no big deal.
Has TOU pricing just come to the UK...it has been a regular part of pricing in the US for decades. Did I misunderstand something at 20:57?
Nebraska USA has OPPD, a public subdivision of the state. Works the best. 5 states in the USA setup this way.
Let's use South Africa as an example of exactly how disastrous unbridled state monopoly of power supply can turn out to be. Eskom, South Africa's monopoly power generator utility, bulk generates and bulk supplies many of South Africa's municipalities at a discount.
There are however some towns and villages that are supplied directly by Eskom. Municipalities then resell their bulk supply to residence within the municipal area at a very much inflated cost. They justify the inflated cost by stating that part of that revenue is used to supply free or discounted electricity to qualifying poor households. Furthermore, the revenue received is used to fund the running of the municipal electrical network. Yes, Eskom only supply up until its substations and from there the municipality is responsible for electrical feed direct to households. It is well known that municipal employees across the board earn greatly elevated wages and salaries than what is earned for the same level of work in the private secure. So what we end up with is works that deliver suboptimal work effort in way of services to the communities. What all of this ends up achieving is run away cost inflation across the entire economy. Strangely those town and villages that are fortunate to receive electricity supply direct from Eskom are not subjected to additional cost hikes imposed by municipalities. So there is a us and them situation in which the exists a potential favoured demand for residential property in areas that are serviced directly by Eskom. So to cut the long story short, we have local government policy that justifies utility (all utilise: water, waste removal, licence fees and electricity) prices inflation because they have a mandate to uplift those previously disadvantaged under Apartheid. All of this on paper sounds wonderfully egalitarian and socially just BUT all that really occurs is that South Africa has created a 'fat cat class' of overpaid underpreforming local government employees that enjoy state subsidised healthcare, sick leave and pensions across all levels of the state workforce. This bloated state sponsored workforce numbered 1.3 million employees in national and provincial government in 2019/20 financial period who received R567 billion in compensation. The state is the largest employer in South Africa. The excess generated by this bloated state apparatus results in a continuous base price inflation within the greater economy. Power being a massive contributor to that inflation. At the end of the day there is less employment within the private sector and an ever growing level of entrenched poverty. Despite the excessively high electrical prices, South African have been suffering power outages to deficits in super generation for almost two decades. So think twice before you hand over the total responsibility to the state to supply electrical services.
I agree the biggest problems of our day is created by all these middlemen.
Whether in energy markets, services market, health market, reliant on online middlemen apps, plugins, etc etc etc etc.
These middlemen create one thing, useful when we like being less active socially, physically and mentally, and profit immensely and infinitely, by making life impossible without these BS gadgets that need no further work or effort, yet generate and syphon all economy!!
Watch Episode 32 of Cleaning Up with Greg Jackson, CEO of Octopus Energy, here:
ua-cam.com/video/x9kHNMyH7bw/v-deo.html
Read Yanis' response to Michael's takeaways from the episode here:
www.yanisvaroufakis.eu/2022/11/01/should-electricity-markets-be-reformed-or-disbanded-my-debate-with-michael-liebreich-on-cleaning-up/
And Michael's response to Yanis' response (!) here: drive.google.com/file/d/1Ra5-C56VYqfkTI9ylkPtOkcpFncOsTYG/view
I wish I could hire Yanis to run my clown enterprise. This guy does nothing but come with pure logic, and facts.
"We need privatised services because they will come up with things we don't need" is a condemnation of an ideology, as duly noted by Yanis.
And it is wrong at its core. Electricity generation and distribution is in reality quite simple, irrespective of the means of generation. It is massively expensive to build a network and maintain it, but believing it needs private enterprise to 'innovate' such a straightforward system is blind at best.
In India in some states we do have power in public sector. So that some sections like farmers can get free or cheaper power and poor can get cheaper power.
The statements Yanis makes around 43:00 (''not after all singing and dancing'') is surely where the government needs to take the energy market. We need availability, cheap, green and to do it quickly. Innovation around a stable base load and the opportunity to reduce one's own costs, sure......but not at the expense of the basic principles.
we need change of consciousness, where people truly conserve and use less ... opposite of usa 'me first' mentality
EDF provides time of day
Michael Liebreich is a brilliant mind and an excellent debater.
I'm blushing!
A mjor problem is data fragmentation. Whether for or against markets, they cannot intervene in spot situations which occur once every blue moon. These do exist and can down a grid (e.g. unexpected control oscillation, plus other situations) - but they are rare so offer little ongoing $$ incentive for a market, plus may need data from around the grid in "unexpected" places. Traditionally grid stability and protection engineers have thought about these.
How can a market sping into existance and correct something unexpected?
im in complete agreement with varoufakis .. this idea that 'innovative clever rich people' are better at managing our common resources and communities is an ideology that has proved itself to be nothing but a free for all for a bunch of greedy egotists ..there is no efficiency from privatization , as we were all told...instead their is catastrophe for the ordinary person .. humanity can and has managed itself in systems of care and we can do it again , perhaps we need to distract the childish billionaires and their entourages and minions with some shiny objects so ordinary people can get on with creating functional communities .. i'm so fed up with patronizing ordinary people and pretending these entitled wealthy have some greater level of value to contribute to society .. its idiotic narcissism
It's crazy how this man, Mr. Liebreich, seems to have invested so much time into NOT seeing any real solution to climate change solely because of ideology, it seems
Ha, ha, somenone's not paying attention. There is a difference between nationalising things you don't understand and solving climate change, my friend.
@@MLiebreich I'd suggest you read "hot money" by Naomi Klein amongst many other books/ research papers in this area so you can begin to understand how capitalism and slowing/reversing climate change are antithetical to each other
The longer something exists, the more exploited/exploitive it becomes. This is the same for national and private industries. Private is naturally exploitive and national naturally exploited. Neither work, therefore the question is: How do we stop the exploited/exploitive in the system
see dr david graeber
@@zantecarroll4448 this kind of turns nassim taleb on his head ,,, the longer it exists, the more likely it's continued existence ... but also it's probability of exploitation, haha ... the truth is we are in another deep robber baron phase of history, under the guise globalist wishful thinking and greenwashing, etc. more systems failures like the 'great financial crisis', pandemics, natural disasters, supply chain crunches and more are likely before people truly rethink things
India has delivered the ‘boring, etc etc”….Utilities whether power, water, etc need to be publicly owned….Yanis is correct- the ideology of ‘private sector knows it all’ is funded by private sector lobbyist….bailout after bailout of sectors says it all….time stamp-50 onwards says it all…
A light comes on when the rates go y
Up
Funny the discussion about Liz Truss, she didn’t last long lol.
Empire can only be empire by consuming more energy than it produces
The way I see it is, if you have publicly (owned by the people) monopolies without shareholders profits removed, profits can be plowed back into making the organisation work more effectively and efficiently, making it affordable for many and reliable, profiteering always injects instability. This is why the Tories are trying to destroy the NHS an organisation paid for the demos (N.I.) by introducing private companies that inject instability.
We had cheaper electricity starting in the evening 21:00 untill 07:00. Ex Yugoslavia. And you talk about genuinity? Jeees.
Say what you will about Yanis’ social views but he simply doesn’t understand enough about the energy industry or is wilfully forgetting or unaware of the history of power systems. To think somehow that a vertically integrated government owned utility that controls all aspects of the electric system could possibly wrangle with, or even could be sufficiently incentivised to deal with the complexities of today’s grid is nonsensical. Yes we ultimately want a simple product, electricity that is always there, but the immense complexity behind providing that product is now far too much for one entity to possibly control adequately. His example of AMAZON, one of the most fundamental examples of rampant capitalism and “privateering” (to use his words) which could only exist because the incentives exists in capitalism and the profits that can be extracted by exploiting your workforce enables such an entity to exist, is somehow something a government entity could ever be is laughable.
Apart from being really mistaken about so many things, Varoufakis is such a hypocrite!
Liquid Floride Thorium Salt. The cheap, safe, way out.
Michael, have you eat Chomsky explain what is Regulation Capture? This is the method the the corporations disarm regulation. It’s actually so easy for them to do this. So now we know and have the language to explain why regulation is not the solution we once thought it was.
verofakis knows his shit .. who wans the middleman!?
Transnational political parties, Yanis?
You know that we know that is another step toward one-world government, don't you.
Though I have learned a lot from your videos, I would not be persuaded to go along with that, ever.
All innovation is done by small companies where a bunch of people cooperate and co-own to come up with a great idea. After that they are purchased by big companies. The idea that innovation happens in privately owned large enterprises is totally bonkers.
yes and dr david graeber pointed out that most of the great innovations were most likely by ordinary women in early human history and ordinary individuals tinkering in their kitchens, drawing rooms, garages and gardens in more recent human history ... then exploited by middlemen who reinvent themselves , with some help from self interested psychophants, as genius's, its such an absurd but popular myth
This idea that the most brilliant people are only motivated by money is frustratingly false...most humans, especially the most curious ones, are motivated by far more important values than the highest salaries... when not in a state of desperation caused by a vicious neoliberal economic system of violence in which they cant afford electricity... there are plenty of brilliant people who would devote their lives to creating effective systems for their communities in return for the much more rewarding value of being part of something greater than themselves and an ordinary living salary ...given the opportunity..its a filter of terrible elitism to see humanity as a mob of idiots rescued by the clever rich kids and or the authoritarian good-father figures. We are not infants, we can associate freely and creatively and cooperate to build systems of care and effective energy systems for communities that foster well being for humanity and all of life. as yanis points out standing in our way are a number of oligarchs.... and their psychophants and a cynicism and complacency and debilitating anxiety deliberately generated by the oligarchs bought media and politicians.
Liebreich wants his Lear jet. The rest is yak yak yak
Pan-European movement?
Isn’t that the EU?
Or is the EU in need of reform
Politics in the EU still happen mostly at a national level.
I think I get Yanis idea in juxtaposition with Mike's internet example: probably some innovation did come out of that massive buying of modems, borrowing to create the infrastructure etc. But if the innovation in electricity is as marginal as smart meters and apps that gamify consumption, as well financial bets (marketing too being very much a financial bet), surely it has not earned them the "right" of paying close to zero for their inputs and getting paid max for the output. I don't which genius designed this system anyway (revolving door energy consultants perhaps?), but in a more rational semi-nationalized electricity system then the public would indeed absorb the cost of expensive "system stabilizers" like gas, but would be paying close to zero for half of their energy. I'm only halfway in the discussion, so I don't know to what extent EU "free market" pressures created this mess, when it's obvious there's not enough energy routes to make this a balanced EU-wide market.
We have ISRO which sends satellites
It is a public sector organisation.
Clearly the Interviewer is ideologically biased. He just cannot go beyond his ideology that PRIVATE IS BETTER. We have great systems to deal with complexity. It has nothing to do with private ownership. In fact all of the research is done in the public sphere. The same as Amazon does it. The issue is who owns it? We the people or a single billionaire
agile prices a innovation? my mum
allways forced not use the dish machine before nine o clock because its cheaper and that i 20 yrs ago…. in switzerland, where state is running electricity.
I really like Yanis as a thinker and politician, but his entire premise here is wrong. Although the electricity grid is a natural monopoly, electricity generation and retail not. That is why in Europe the unbundling of the electricity sector was implemented: to separate natural monopolies (transmission grid, distribution grid) from competitive markets (electricity generation and retail).
I agree with you on this one, but to be honest, you can't agree a 100% on everything. As a ancap i have to say that Yanis really is a person that provoked me to change my perspectives on so many levels. Don't agree on a lot of stuff he says, but agree a on tons of points he made the last couple of years. Apart from that the man has integrity, balls and a vision that is respectable.
Did NASA send astronauts to moon or GE??
LOL. It's much deeper than electricity. It's all futures. It's all a transfer of wealth to finance/monopoly.
Host talking more than the person invited to talk?
I am amused by the desperate dodging of the point Yanis is making with the Amazon example, pulling out an example of "a different Amazon" that is entirely unrelated to the point which is that the computation problem that supposedly undermines the idea of central planning is very clearly proven immaterial by the real-world existence and functioning of massive companies like Amazon, Walmart...
WTF you blow up Nordsream and blame Putin
I alway like discussions with Yanis but he can be incredibly wrong. When you recommend governmentization of a ulitity in this case you are giving it to the people who screwed it up. The change would be only the illusion of progress. The UK is in dire need of good management and stewardship. UK can't manage Brexiit, trade, railroads. And you want to give them Utilities?
Tom Nevling
How did the people screw up the electricity company?
@@dogeared100 The government wrote poor utility contracts. A good contract alows a risk reward margin of 5% to 15% profit. A public ulilty commission would negotiate all circumstances and be proactive. The UK has been totaly reactionary. The US has 50 PUCs one for each state. A couple failures have been California and Texas. Failures there were also management. They didn't prepare for fire and cold weather. You don't manage your house that way.
Back in the day, base load was defined as a engineering requirement. After privatisation, base load, to the financial community, became contracted load.