Some people have misguidedly moaned about TEQs being a fancy name for austerity-era rationing. But such a system is infinitely more appealing than some true rationing regimes. Do not be surprised if the following is the start of a trend.
President Nicolas Maduro’s administration says the cards to track families’ purchases will foil people who stock up on groceries at subsidized prices and then illegally resell them for several times the amount.
Whatever you think of such ideas, the article contains a useful plan of action.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
emordnilap wrote:Some people have misguidedly moaned about TEQs being a fancy name for austerity-era rationing. But such a system is infinitely more appealing than some true rationing regimes. Do not be surprised if the following is the start of a trend.
I'm not sure I agree that it's a misguided notion tbh, quotas/rationing, all the same, all benefit those with the money over those who don't.
The plan of action is useful though, worth doing even in a time of plenty imo.
emordnilap wrote:Some people have misguidedly moaned about TEQs being a fancy name for austerity-era rationing. But such a system is infinitely more appealing than some true rationing regimes. Do not be surprised if the following is the start of a trend.
I'm not sure I agree that it's a misguided notion tbh, quotas/rationing, all the same, all benefit those with the money over those who don't.
The plan of action is useful though, worth doing even in a time of plenty imo.
TEQs are neutral over the issue of 'benefit those with the money over those who don't' but not neutral over the issue of energy frugality. TEQs hurt people who fly a lot and drive powerful cars and benefit, financially, those who prefer to walk. This makes them utterly different to conventional rationing.
Why wouldn't conventional rationing hurt them? Fuel rationing would make all of these more expensive even if they were obtained on the black market - something that would still exist under TEQ.
It's not neutral, those with money will be able to have more - just as it is now. It's only the total allowed over the country that will be limited - artificially, something that rarely works in practice.
I've seen this discussed on other forums. In all honesty rationing or TEQ's seem to me to be actually a decent idea , I can't see why anyone can be against a fairer sharing of resources or guaranteeing the poorest in society have access to food and fuel. I've often thought that a system of rationing for say sugar , fats and alcohol would have a beneficial effect on the health of the nation to boot and far more effective than education and tax hikes and it shouldn't be difficult to implement . We could use existing technology such as chip and pin to give everyone an " account" that is credited with a certain amount each week so no hugely costly new infer structure and easily used for a variety of goods.
As said there will be a black market but it's hardly an excuse against the idea, it's not as if the current system is free of corruption .
Lurkalot wrote: I can't see why anyone can be against a fairer sharing of resources
I suppose if you are one of those who currently has an unfairly large share of resources, and you want to keep it that way, then you might be against more fairness. Unfortunately, those in power seems to be those kind of people.
biffvernon wrote:TEQs produce a powerful incentive for behavioural change and the invention of solutions.
So does traditional rationing...
I'll give you a scenario - poor family sells far to many TEQs (to buy big TV/car/whatever). What happens next? do they get left to die from hypothermia in the upcoming extra cold winter? No, the government will just give them and the people like them extra TEQ.
No government is hard headed enough not to take the easy route out when votes are at stake. It'll be the 'think of the children' argument 100 times over.
TEQs do seem fairer than the use it or lose it traditional style rationing, but the end result is the same, and also pointless unless countries like the USA and China introduce similar systems. We can 'lead the way' all we like, it'll make no difference if nobody else follows.
You scenario is not a feature of TEQs. You could say the silly family sold too much money to buy TV etc. To buy energy they need money and TEQs. TEQs are not a substitute for money.
On your last point, cubes, there is a distinct first users advantage to TEQ adoption. The powerful incentive to creative energy reduction technology gives the nation a competitive advantage in a world in which energy supply is constrained. Once one major nation adopts TEQs others would follow in quick order.
biffvernon wrote:You scenario is not a feature of TEQs. You could say the silly family sold too much money to buy TV etc. To buy energy they need money and TEQs. TEQs are not a substitute for money.
On your last point, cubes, there is a distinct first users advantage to TEQ adoption. The powerful incentive to creative energy reduction technology gives the nation a competitive advantage in a world in which energy supply is constrained. Once one major nation adopts TEQs others would follow in quick order.
No they wouldn't. They would just nick the energy efficient technology from the TEQ countries and so benefit from all of the technological innovation without any the hassle of having TEQs themselves.
Lets just say TEQs work, though. This just means that some supply is freed up globally. In which case the price drops slightly, or does not rise as fast. In turn, leading to other global consumers who were hitherto priced out of the global market now being able to afford to consume. In other words, unless everyone adopts TEQ rationing (or any other kind of rationing) at the global level simultaneously, any rationing in one part of the global economy will be immediately offset by increased consumption elsewhere.
stevecook172001 wrote:They would just nick the energy efficient technology from the TEQ countries and so benefit from all of the technological innovation without any the hassle of having TEQs themselves.
stevecook172001 wrote:
Lets just say TEQs work, though. This just means that some supply is freed up globally. In which case the price drops slightly, or does not rise as fast. In turn, leading to other global consumers who were hitherto priced out of the global market now being able to afford to consume. In other words, unless everyone adopts TEQ rationing (or any other kind of rationing) at the global level simultaneously, any rationing in one part of the global economy will be immediately offset by increased consumption elsewhere.
That's true, just so long as there is no supply constraint from geological, economic or emission target legislation. There will probably be all three.
stevecook172001 wrote:They would just nick the energy efficient technology from the TEQ countries and so benefit from all of the technological innovation without any the hassle of having TEQs themselves.
Fine. That's a result.
A very short lived result. That is to say, those countries who take the TEQ route will be severely disadvantaged over the short to medium term as compared to their competitors who simply adopt the efficiency technologies without all of the other stuff. This will lead to TEQ economies collapsing and being replaced by more lazziez-fair short termist economic systems in order to complete. I'm not saying this is good for humanity or the rest of the eco system as a whole. Quite the opposite, in fact. It is inevitable, however.
The only way the entire global human civilisation can be persuaded to adopt ecologically sound and sustainable global economic practices is if any one participant is not economically disadvantaged by doing so. And that's just not politically or logistically possible to enforce. Partly as a consequence of resistance from below and partly as a consequence of corruption from above.
stevecook172001 wrote:
Lets just say TEQs work, though. This just means that some supply is freed up globally. In which case the price drops slightly, or does not rise as fast. In turn, leading to other global consumers who were hitherto priced out of the global market now being able to afford to consume. In other words, unless everyone adopts TEQ rationing (or any other kind of rationing) at the global level simultaneously, any rationing in one part of the global economy will be immediately offset by increased consumption elsewhere.
That's true, just so long as there is no supply constraint from geological, economic or emission target legislation. There will probably be all three.
Of course there will be statutory constraints. However, they will vary considerably from region to region. That's the point I am getting at. Thus, within the context of those variable constraints there will always exist an incentivised optimum strategy that involves burning what is there and so manufacturers will inevitably site their manufacturing bases where the statutory constraints on doing so are the weakest. Any manufacturer that does not follow that strategy will be put out of business in short order by those that do. As for geological constraints, they will not alter the above economic calculations made by manufacturers. One way or another, they will take the cheapest option available on the global stage because to do otherwise would be to commit business suicide. The only way businesses and citizens alike can be persuaded to take the option that services the long term interest of humanity and rest of life as a whole is if it is imposed globally and simultaneously. And that's simply not going to happen.
All of the above has long term deleterious consequences for humanity and for the rest of life, of course. Unfortunately, however, most humans tend to view the consequences of their actions only as far as their families and as long as a human lifetime. I wish all the above were not true. But it is.
Last edited by Little John on 07 Apr 2014, 18:07, edited 3 times in total.
biffvernon wrote:You scenario is not a feature of TEQs. You could say the silly family sold too much money to buy TV etc. To buy energy they need money and TEQs. TEQs are not a substitute for money.
But if you can sell your TEQ for money then they are a substitute for money - in fact they are 'free' money given to you by the government! (in some people mind they will be)
It'll be a pretty hard-headed government that will resist the media and popular pressure to give out more in this situation.
