Currently browsing category

Без категория

Investment and expensive electricity

In 2010, the electricity sector are accounted for around € 23.7 billion investment in renewable energy. The presentation suggests that any evil powers, probably “market forces” of the road have come invest in the power sector and they are misdirected. However, this is not so. Here we can introduce you to several different interpretations of these issues. The problem is homemade.

It is a problem only of political control. The story begins with the compensation structure in the Renewable Energy Sources Act. The EEG is not only the amount of compensation is regulated, which is guaranteed to producers of renewable energy. In the EEG of a purchase obligation because of renewable energy is regulated and the corresponding current.

The renewable energy lobbyists for their clients have created this unique shelter. An investor, who invests in the production of renewable energy, has no business risk. The product is removed at a guaranteed price in almost any quantity. Rational actors populate the economy. For renewable energy, the question of how to maximize its benefits, already regulated by the EEG, by the compensation structure. Those who invest in solar energy, receives more than four times as much per kWh of energy does.

Nevertheless, solar power is the most expensive option of electricity generation and with a share of 4% (2011) rather a marginal phenomenon among the types of renewable energy production. The investment in solar power is thus a misallocation of resources, which in turn must be paid by someone. The difference in cost by the guaranteed price for solar energy is 28.74 CT / kWh, less the market price that is traded on the current example of the EPEXSPOT Paris Stock Exchange.

The difference in price that is charged to end users amounts therefore to 24.74 cents / kWh. The price difference alone is already five times the market price.


Who controls the rating agencies

Should it really be the case that the three major rating agencies, Standard & Poor’s (S & P), Moody’s and Fitch downgraded the creditworthiness of the U.S. that would mean a further tightening of the U.S. debt problem? Because according to the rated as more risky government bonds higher returns would be demanded.

The consequence would be the annual interest expense and thus increase current spending.Rating-Agencies-logos A downgrade of the United States is not only a disaster for America. The loss of the top rating of forcing creditors worldwide to assess their assets and redistribute. Because the scores of CRAs by state financial regulators have a financial basis, they expose banks and insurance companies of “stress tests”.

The judgment of the rating agencies is authentic. This outstanding special position of the rating agencies and it is more than critical. For whoever controls the rating agencies? No one! For everything that happens in the financial markets, there are supervisory bodies – but not for the rating agencies. S & P, Moody’s and Fitch Ratings are nothing more than private companies are whose primary goal is profit maximization.

They are not subject to an independent arbitrator and AAA_2161774bhardly any competition. They are part of the financial world and pursue their own interests. The reform must be found. To change the economic sources of the credit rating agencies would be a first step towards improvement.

One possible approach is if all participate in an evaluation by independent rating agencies are interested by a compulsory levy to pay. A disclosure of the valuation models and stricter oversight of the rating agencies would be interested linkages further steps. More important would be to the credit rating agencies to take responsibility for their ratings and make them normal players on the stock exchange floor. According to other views, it is a wrong direction. It is said that the tips of the policy and the financial sector are geared too much.

Obviously, have no interest to competition. As the agencies are large, they can generate predictions that come true automatically. Nevertheless, there are many market participants, which follow them. The same goes for banks. They could be allowed to fail. The more participants and the more competition, the more efficient the market acts.

Bank bailouts and increasing social expenditure

Germany is about to socialism, at least according to the definition of former Chancellor Helmut Kohl. “In a state rate of 50 percent starting socialism” he said. It comes to bank bailouts and increasing social expenditure, subsidies – all of which drives up government spending. feds-see-huge-returns

Almost half of the income generated was diverted in the past year at the disposal of the state. Where exactly the optimal is state quota, no one knows. Anyway, it would depend on the quality of government spending. 100 billion was from the state last year are for education. A lot of money, but by international standards it is rather too little. Popular, however, are spending on subsidies. 160 billion are donated to the public sector.

Eucken after the government’s job is to set out a framework for society and the economy, but not to interfere in the process. Eucken follow all subsidies should be eliminated. This would be enough the recently announced tax relief of 10 billion refinancing equal to 16 times. In addition, the change of system would be postponed for now.

The importance of emerging markets

The importance of emerging markets is rising by the industrialized nations of the world.Emerging-Markets Especially in the U.S., there is great scepticism about the BRIC nations. Of course, the rise of Brazil, Russia, India and China cannot be stopped, even though the financial and economic crisis.

Studies attest an irresistibly strong economic growth, but also an ever-growing share of global gross domestic product. Short and medium term can be also expected with increasing wealth in broader social classes. Europe, above all Germany, is benefited from the rise of the BRIC countries. West Germany exported more goods while already in the BRIC countries than in the United States.

During the financial crisis has been growing steadily, the importance of free trade. Given the economic weaknesses of the EU and the U.S., the leading players in the international trade policy, it would be more important for markets to open up further and bring productivity enhancing reforms. In this way, also to strengthen competition on the road. Instead, the U.S. is on the leading role in the international trade policy. Therein lies the key to the crisis. We have a choice: liberalization or further crisis