Yet
Another Exponential Chart... And A Different Spin On "Keynesianism"
19
July, 2012
In
our daily scouring of the markets we run across a plethora of charts,
many of them boring, some interesting, and a few select ones,
exponential, and thus completely unsustainable. The US debt load is
of course one of them, global central bank assets is another, as is
pretty much everything associated with Europe these days. However,
the following exponential chart
is one we had never encountered before: it shows the number of major
"disturbances", read power outages, in America's power grid
in the last decade. The chart is, well, disturbing.
So
with fiscal stimulus to fund social projects as one of the core
tenets of neo-classical economics, or at least such being its
interpretation in Washington, D.C., and New York Times newsroom of
course, one wonders if perhaps this is not one of those occasions
where it would make sense to incur the social cost to fund
infrastructure developments upgrading America's dilapidated power
system.
We
would be merrily on our way with such blasphemous thoughts until we
looked at another chart, this time one showing the "real
victims" of power outages, where to our absolute lack of
surprise, we find that by far the biggest beneficiary of an operating
power system are US Brokerage operations, for whom every hour in
power grid downtime results in a cost of a whopping $6.5 million.
Which
then begs the question: since brokers, read High Frequency Traders,
investment banks, and other operations that require copious amounts
of electricity to run "arbitrage" and other "sensitive"
information driven profitability schemes on a millisecond basis, are
the ones benefitting the most from a well-greased power grid, should
it be the onus of Joe Sixpack, in the form of yet
more indebtedness,
to fund a system whose benefits are so disproportionately skewed to
the benefit of one specific class of consumers.
Perhaps
it is the banks, who are so very reliant on an up to date electrical
utility system, that should be the ones funding on a pro-rata basis
in terms of benefits, or well over half, the modernization of such
facilities. After all, following the mass bailout of all banks, these
entities are already, pardon the pan, utilities themsleves... or at
least would be if the bailouts had
been executed properly, and any excess profits were solely to the
benefit of those who provided the bailout cash in the first place:
those who are now asked to fund infrastructure overhauls as well.
Naturally
the same logic could be applied to all other aspects of the aging US
infrastructure: perhaps instead of everyone paying for something
which benefits abrnomally a select few, it is those who extract the
most externalities out of these societal programs should be the ones
paying for their upkeep?
Just
a thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.