The perverse effort of some “free market” and “classical liberal” intellectuals to promote centrally planned electricity markets at wholesale (thus indirectly at retail) is a very curious example in the history of energy thought. Lynne Kiesling and Michael Giberson (see yesterday) are the guilty.
In AI and Economic Calculation (Substack), Kiesling explains the basics of the central-planning debate but ducks the elephant in her room, the centrally planned wholesale power market.
I have emphasized to Lynne Don Lavoie’s critique of noncomprehensive planning that went alongside his work on comprehensive planning, challenging her to forthrightly apply his argument to her beloved mandatory open access/Independent System Operator/Regional Transmission Organization (MOA/ISO/RTO) framework. The “knowledge problem” she champions reflects badly from her own mirror, if she would only see (impartial observer needed).…
“Giberson and Kiesling are all in with the Biden Agenda of the Production Tax Credit for industrial wind; the Investment Tax Credit for solar; pricing CO2, even if that means international ‘border adjustments.’ Two ‘classical liberals’ accepting rather than debating/criticizing climate alarmism and forced energy transformation? They should explain themselves rather than dodge, deflect, pretend.”
He steadfastly refuses to define what a free market is in electricity–and what the end state is for a classical liberal. Bonded with Lynne Kiesling, another pretend classical liberal when it comes to electricity, Michael Giberson can only claim to try to make the politicalized system better. And that is getting harder and harder to do.
Here is my latest exchange with Giberson on social media where he makes a specious argument that a regulated gasoline market at wholesale is analogous to a centrally planned electricity market.…
Ed note: The evolution of the Institute for Energy Research (IER), from a part-time to a full-time organization, is recounted below. (The earlier history of IER can be found here, here, and here. ) From inception, the institute has been a classical-liberal organization in favor of economic freedom–and thus consumers and taxpayers. In this regard, Wiki’s (erroneous) entry on IER is rebutted here.
In its 36th year, the Institute for Energy Research (IER) has a proud history that rebuts the erroneous ad hominem arguments hurled against its principles and principals. Ever since its humble beginnings, IER’s rock-solid research into the economics, political economy, philosophy, and history of energy markets have stood the test of time. Energy markets need to be free of, not controlled by, government—for human betterment and individual justice.…