Cheaper is not the same as more profitable. It’s an important distinction. You can’t own and control the sun and charge people to harvest the energy. Monopolizing and gatekeeping are the end goals of capital owners.
Unless you think the Chinese market is more free. They’re producing solar panels like crazy.
Let’s take a famous adage of “teach a man to fish” and attempt to demonstrate these two business strategies. Let’s bend this metaphor to the point of breaking. Fish are the analog for energy.
Business model #1: (solar panels)
You make fishing poles so that people can fish on the lake for themselves. After you sell someone a pole, you no longer have that person paying you more money unless they break it. It’s a fairly straightforward business that allows people to get their own food.
Business model #2: (oil)
You own the lake, you own the boats and fishing poles. You pay people a wage to fish, that are yours too. You pay people to sell your fish, you build infrastructure to wall off the lake. You pay guards a wage to protect your lake from people that want “free fish”. If people want food, you have leverage over people through ownership of all the assets and lake. You can raise prices when you want. As your fish business is successful you buy up all the lakes around and get a monopoly. Maybe you intentionally don’t merge with 1 or 2 other companies to prevent government regulation against monopolies and effectively raise prices in unison (it’s called price leadership). A freer market will just make this control worse and more pronounced. A new fuedalism will emerge of a few kings and serfs that own nothing and rent from people that own.
It’s more expensive, less efficient, less egalitarian, but it will be more profitable because you own it.
OK. Oil is only profitable for a select few people now. Why don’t we rise up in arms to change production and seize the means of production now? More people have incentive to now than not (most people are not oil billionaires), why doesn’t it change?
Coercion through state violence, a propaganda apparatus telling you the only way to structure society is through capitalism, and treats to sedate the masses from revolting against their living conditions.
A magic nebulous “more free” market doesn’t change that.
Kind of. It’s the system they operate under, capitalism.
Get rid of those specific people and you would have others people take their place.
However, not to say that it isn’t worthwhile to also bust out the guillotines
If you bust out the guillotine, the people who replace them will behave as if they’ve seen what happens when the guillotines get busted out.
Renewables+nuclear is cheaper and in a truly free market would beat out oil
Cheaper is not the same as more profitable. It’s an important distinction. You can’t own and control the sun and charge people to harvest the energy. Monopolizing and gatekeeping are the end goals of capital owners.
Unless you think the Chinese market is more free. They’re producing solar panels like crazy.
Oil is only profitable for the people producing oil, which is not most people
That’s… the point
Then? More people have the incentive to break from this than not
Let’s take a famous adage of “teach a man to fish” and attempt to demonstrate these two business strategies. Let’s bend this metaphor to the point of breaking. Fish are the analog for energy.
Business model #1: (solar panels) You make fishing poles so that people can fish on the lake for themselves. After you sell someone a pole, you no longer have that person paying you more money unless they break it. It’s a fairly straightforward business that allows people to get their own food.
Business model #2: (oil) You own the lake, you own the boats and fishing poles. You pay people a wage to fish, that are yours too. You pay people to sell your fish, you build infrastructure to wall off the lake. You pay guards a wage to protect your lake from people that want “free fish”. If people want food, you have leverage over people through ownership of all the assets and lake. You can raise prices when you want. As your fish business is successful you buy up all the lakes around and get a monopoly. Maybe you intentionally don’t merge with 1 or 2 other companies to prevent government regulation against monopolies and effectively raise prices in unison (it’s called price leadership). A freer market will just make this control worse and more pronounced. A new fuedalism will emerge of a few kings and serfs that own nothing and rent from people that own.
It’s more expensive, less efficient, less egalitarian, but it will be more profitable because you own it.
OK. Oil is only profitable for a select few people now. Why don’t we rise up in arms to change production and seize the means of production now? More people have incentive to now than not (most people are not oil billionaires), why doesn’t it change?
Coercion through state violence, a propaganda apparatus telling you the only way to structure society is through capitalism, and treats to sedate the masses from revolting against their living conditions.
A magic nebulous “more free” market doesn’t change that.
Would you say the health industry is exactly the same after Luigi?
Exactly? Of course not
Almost exactly? Yes
So if one death changes at least a little bit. Can’t you believe that 100 deaths might change something?