SZwanglos – Following Feed

RT von @ProfAlkas: Wie erwartet dazu passend… https://x.com/faznet/status/2039404209993375987?s=46

RT von @ProfAlkas: Dazu passende kritisch realistische Worte über Erneuerbare

No, we don't have to accept 0% growth. And we don’t have to treat the carbon price like a sacrosanct parameter. Increasing transfers in citizens' money reduce incentives to work and put a strain on growth. This economic lock-in is poisonous for productivity and dynamism.

RT by @ProfAlkas: Without wanting to offend you: you don't even need game theory... common sense is enough 😎.

RT by @ProfAlkas: Chemnitz is struggling with high district heating costs: St. Petri City Church switches off the heating because costs are too high - Easter services are canceled https://blackout-news.de/aktuelles/fernwaerme-schock-in-chemnitz-stadtkirche-st-petri-dreht-heiz-ab/

RT von @ProfAlkas: x.com/ProfAlkas/status/20305…

Correct measures .@Cartel Office but the design is incorrectly designed in game theory: If prices are allowed to be corrected downwards during the day, the incentive to set low starting prices decreases (Bertrand paradox)! Without a reduction option, the starting price tends to be an incremental cost.

Italy is keeping coal-fired power plants as an option for 15 years longer. Germany is bringing forward the shutdown and blowing it up with millions to make switching impossible. Germany's electricity price is higher than Italy's, industry is fleeing. This is German self-destruction with green rhetoric.

RT by @ProfAlkas: Exactly. This is a dominant strategy.

Lufthansa management reacts worse to every crisis: making pro-cyclical cuts, shutting down capacities, destroying options. Crises are temporary, bad decisions are not. Anyone who loses power when they are weak will miss out on recovery. This is not risk management, but expensive activism.

RT by @ProfAlkas: If prices are allowed to be corrected downwards throughout the day, the incentive to initially set high and react later increases. This weakens the Bertrand pressure. However, if downward corrections are eliminated, the starting price is close to incremental costs https://x.com/welt/status/2039036135653990677?s=46

Russia sanctions do significantly more damage 🇩🇪. Russia is stabilizing & Ukraine is still suffering. The costs are greater than the benefits. Gas imports would lower our electricity prices and reduce de-industrialization. This is not appeasement, this is economic arithmetic.

Indien will LNG aus Russland trotz US-Drohungen: ca. 44 Mrd. $ russisches Öl kam in 2024, jetzt wieder LNG im Gespräch. Auslöser: Iran-Krise & Hormus-Risiko. Trotz US-Druck (+50 % Zölle) priorisierte Delhi Versorgungssicherheit. Energie folgt Geopolitik. US-Sanktionen IshOver?

Make limitation and renunciation a passion :)

An option is not a bond, but it has value. Anyone who demolishes nuclear power plants and blows up coal-fired power plants irreversibly destroys real options. That costs more than maintaining them. Anyone who does this anyway is damaging this country - intentionally or negligently. Neither is acceptable

Family insurance is part of the GKV contract. Interventions distort incentives: high earners are more likely to switch to private insurance. This leads to adverse selection & risk pooling erosion: The financing base is shrinking, average costs are rising, contributions are following suit!

🇩🇪 has actively and significantly destroyed its energy optionality: switching off nuclear power plants, dismantling modern coal-fired power plants, relying unilaterally on renewables. Result: high prices, declining security, industry migration. This is not an energy transition; this is politically created dependency

RT von @ProfAlkas: Bald heißt es wieder: Flatten the Curve

RT by @ProfAlkas: Not entirely wrong

USA broke the rules-based order (first Venezuela then Iran). Now everyone else is taking advantage. Russia supplies oil to Cuba and knows that the USA cannot credibly threaten because they themselves broke the rules. Sanctions no longer work. This is system collapse

RT von @ProfAlkas: Kontext zur besseren Einordnung https://x.com/imfnews/status/2038632798882533405?s=46

RT by @ProfAlkas: That's why the consequences are difficult to calculate. Covid was also an external shock, but it affected industry supply chains, for example when ports closed. But there was no shortage of raw materials.

RT by @ProfAlkas: Price shocks are secondary. Controlling quantities is crucial: ~20% of global oil passes through Hormuz. Anyone who can disrupt the flow has structural market power. Iran's advantage: asymmetric damage capacity + sanctions resilience. This makes Iran a player of attrition

RT by @ProfAlkas: Corona shows the asymmetry: −3% GDP → ~−10% oil demand (demand shock). Reversal does not apply. Supply shocks are cushioned by inventory and substitution; even +50% price does not lead to proportional effects. Oil is a bottleneck factor, not a linear growth driver

Very rough but still important estimates: +10% oil price leads to approximately +0.1–0.15 percentage points inflation and −0.05 to −0.1% GDP. It is not just the increase in the price of oil that is crucial, but also the shortage of quantities: it only becomes more economically relevant when there is a physical shortage. 1/3

5% mortgage interest rates are the new normal. But they don't finance the house, they ration it. Landlords have to raise rents to survive. Energy standards drive the loan amount even higher. Dreaming of owning your own home becomes a privilege. The debt orgy screwed it up!

We talk about a market economy and practice a planned economy: forcing companies to save CO₂ - the rest of the world doesn't care. So we increase CO₂ prices to make abstinence “attractive”. Result: a cascade of constraints from which we cannot escape. Pure shadow boxing

Until now, I had understood basic research to be something different...😳

R to @ProfAlkas: In several unobjective comments, a contradiction is constructed here that is not a contradiction. Many graphics only show the electricity mix, my statement refers to the entire energy requirement. These are different levels that should be clearly separated analytically.

Electrical applications are more efficient and reduce the final energy requirement per application. However, when transport, heating and industry become electrified, the energy requirement shifts to electricity. Overall, electricity demand is increasing significantly – despite efficiency gains.

Green steel is politically enforced, not market pressure. CO2 avoidance costs exceed the world market price. To cover up these politically induced mistakes, we need to subsidize more. Nevertheless, we cannot keep up with the competition. =>Competitive disadvantage!

This is emergency engineering. As long as Porsche doesn't collapse financially and it goes into series production, you can still live with it. At least someone understood that you have to save - just in the wrong way :)

No, not fairy tale uncle. Fairy tale debunker. The difference: The fairytale uncle tells the story. I tell you how stupid it is to believe them :)

A VAT increase could have an indirect effect like a wealth tax - namely if wealthy people buy more and therefore pay more taxes. The problem: The theory only works if wealthy people actually spend their money.

Belief in the omnipotence of wind & solar is illusory. Together ~8% of the total energy, at night or when there is no calm = zero. €450 billion in funding. “60% green electricity” sounds good – but it is only ~20% of total consumption. Fossil quota has hardly fallen. =>This is a power transition simulacrum

RT by @ProfAlkas: Phase out nuclear power plants, gas, coal. Crazy. And it should be irretrievably destroyed - blowing up power plants, dismantling gas networks, flooding the lignite mining area in North Rhine-Westphalia by rerouting the Rhine. This is destruction. I'm not going to tear down a hospital before the new one is up and running

RT by @ProfAlkas: “The Iran War will cement China’s superpower status” https://x.com/ft/status/2038213831416037798?s=46