By Kevin D. Williamson
Sunday, October 09, 2016
With Hurricane Matthew threatening to tear things up
pretty good in Florida, Georgia, and the Carolinas, the immediate concern is
flooding and roofs caving in on people. But all those high winds and overturned
trees produce a second, often more serious, and often more enduring problem:
the loss of electrical power.
To prevent that, a small army of linemen, tree-trimmers,
and crisis personnel were dispatched to the storm zone from Texas, Mississippi,
and even farther away. This was not organized by FEMA or by any government
agency, but by the private, voluntary efforts of investor-owned utility companies
around the country.
This is standard operating procedure for the
electrical-transmission industry. When Superstorm Sandy flooded a good part of
the eastern United States in 2012, tens of thousands of utility workers were
dispatched — from practically every U.S. state and from Canada — to reconnect
the 10 million or so customers who had lost power. More than 80 different
utility companies — many of them competitors — were involved in the coordinated
relief effort.
Utility companies are funny beasts. Most of them are
monopolies or near-monopolies, partly for historical reasons and partly owing
to the nature of the physical infrastructure involved in the generation and
transmission of power. Some of them are quasi-public, some of them are
organized as co-ops, and some of them are ordinary profit-seeking ventures.
Conservative investors love utility companies for the same reason that
consumers often hate them: They are one of the last vestiges of
mid-century-style high-industrial capitalism, heavily regulated, with very high
barriers to market entry and largely captive consumers. (Some years ago, I met
a utility executive at a party, and he explained to me that he was involved in
long-term strategic planning for his company; I asked whether his long-term strategic
plan was to continue being a monopoly, and he did not seem to find this amusing
at all.) The margins are not large, but the dividends are reliable.
A good utility company is like a good government agency:
You don’t ever have to think about it very much. Electric companies’ No. 1
concern is seamlessness and effective invisibility: You flip the switch and the
lights come on, no questions asked. Their worst nightmare is having customers
start thinking about them too much. No good can come of that, is the general
consensus inside utility-company boardrooms.
For that reason, they have for several decades organized
mutual-aid agreements through their trade associations, the most significant of
which is the Edison Electric Institute, which represents all investor-owned
electric utilities in the United States, providing power to some 220 million
Americans. It represents 70 overseas firms as well and a great many subsidiary
concerns, such as suppliers of electrical equipment and providers of related
engineering services. It has been operating since Franklin Roosevelt was in his
first term.
In theory, this kind of cooperation should not exist. If
every utility executive were in fact a rational specimen of Homo economicus, he would gleefully
greet hurricanes that put his competitors at a disadvantage and imposed large
losses on them. (Utilities may not often compete directly with one another for
customers, but they do compete for capital.)
The difference of a few tenths of a percentage point in the dividend could be
the difference between a large institutional investor putting its money into
Jones Power instead of Smith Power, with billions of dollars potentially at
stake. And, yet, Jones Power does not revel in Smith Power’s troubles —
instead, it sends its own workers into Smith’s market to help out Smith’s
customers.
No doubt you could construct a plausible economic
narrative in which this can all be explained in terms of each firm seeking to
secure its own self-interest very broadly defined — utilities maximizing
utility.
But that misses the point.
For both its admirers and its detractors, the critical
feature of capitalism is its competitiveness.
For the admirers of capitalism, that is what makes it efficient, ensuring that
the interests of large and powerful firms must in the end be roughly aligned
with the interests of ordinary consumers, who in the aggregate have much, much
more power than any individual company. Thus the economic might of Nike and
Walmart and the innovative genius of Apple are bent in the interest of ordinary
people, even poor people, who in spite of their limited means have the ability
to choose Reebok or Target or Samsung instead. For the critics of capitalism —
people who, not coincidentally, helped make monopoly the default model for
utility companies — that competition encourages waste (Bernie Sanders bemoaning
the many choices of deodorant underutilized by his followers, Barack Obama et
al. treating the marketing expenses and profits of health-insurance firms as
net deductions from the public good, etc.) and incentivizes bad behavior.
Properly understood, competition within markets is only a
mechanism by which the actual preferences of consumers and investors are
revealed. Revealing preferences, as opposed to simply asking consumers about
them, is critical, in no small part because consumers never tell the truth
about their preferences when asked. (As a newspaper editor, I was a party to
endless readership surveys in which our subscribers told us that what they
wanted was more in-depth reporting, foreign news, and high-minded book reviews,
when what they actually read were sports scores, obituaries, and letters to the
editor.) When consumers and investors have their own money on the line, we
discover what it is that they actually value. We can, in fact, see the
gradations in comparative valuations in some detail.
What is truly remarkable about 21st-century capitalism is
not the competition — creatures that aren’t even quite sentient, like catfish,
snails, and members of Congress, compete over scarce resources, too — but its cooperation. Every time you buy a
T-shirt or a fast-food hamburger, you tap into a vast network of productive
resources involving everything from agriculture to information science to
logistics, millions of people who do not know one other — who, if they did,
might even hate each other — cooperating in relationships of literally
incalculable complexity, in the service of ordinary schmucks like us.
And there is one remarkable aspect of all that to keep in
mind: No one is in charge of it.
Sometimes, as with the utility companies’ mutual-aid
pacts, the cooperative nature of capitalism is explicit, and its simultaneously
self-interested and altruistic effects are obvious. But more often, that
cooperation happens in a way that is effectively invisible to the consumer.
“But who will build the roads?” That is a standing punch
line for those of us who believe that free people acting through free markets
and other voluntary institutions can do much (and perhaps most, and maybe even
all) of what we normally think of as the work of the public sector. (For the
record, this nation’s first intercity paved road was privately built.) Our
attitudes toward permissionless innovation are partly informed by aesthetics,
partly by differences in our appetite for risk, and partly by generally unexamined
political attitudes, generally acquired early in life. Some people look at the
emergence of the “Chinatown” bus industry and see an unregulated mess, a dog’s
breakfast of actual and potential problems that could be avoided if only we
would expand and adequately fund Amtrak. Others see a solution to the problem
of Amtrak’s inadequacies, and inadequacies associated with the rest of the
transportation market. The people who are more risk-averse — and who therefore
prefer higher levels of regulation and more public-sector involvement in the
economy — are not wrong to be more risk-averse. But it may be that they are
using the wrong math to calculate the risk.
Who do you think would do a better job reconnecting
utility customers’ power in the wake of a hurricane? FEMA? The great minds
behind Obamacare? The sort of people who run your local DMV? The Pentagon? Or a
voluntary mutual-aid cooperative representing people who have a great deal of
capital at stake — and who happen to be the people who know the most about how
electricity generation and transmission actually work?
When it comes to important social concerns such as health
care, affordable housing, and education, the progressives say: “This is too
important to leave to the unpredictability of the free market.” Others say:
“This is too important not to leave to the unpredictability of the free
market.”
One of those propositions is, in reality, more defensible
than the other.
No comments:
Post a Comment