video
Thư viện
Tài trợ
Dây điện chằng chịt như mạng nhện: vì sao vậy?
05 Mar, 2020
vì coi 'có điện' là một quyền chứ sao...
-----
How can treating electricity as a right undermine the aim of universal access to reliable electricity? We argue that there are four steps.
In step 1, because electricity is seen as a right, subsidies (trợ cấp), theft (trộm cắp), and nonpayment (không trả tiền) are widely tolerated (được dung thứ/bỏ qua trên diện rộng). Bills that do not cover costs, unpaid bills, and illegal grid connections (câu/móc trộm điện) become an accepted part of the system (là một phần chấp nhận của hệ thống).
In step 2, electricity utilities—also known as distribution companies (công ty phân phối/truyền tải điện)—lose money with each unit of electricity sold and in total lose large sums of money. Though governments provide support, at some point, budget constraints (giới hạn ngân sách) start to bind.
In step 3, distribution companies have no option but to ration (phân phối, chia khẩu phần) supply by limiting access (hạn chế tiếp cận) and restricting hours of supply (giới hạn số giờ cấp điện). In effect, distribution companies try to sell less of their product.
In step 4, power supply (cung cấp điện) is no longer governed by market forces (không vận hành theo các yếu tố thị trường). The link between payment and supply has been severed (mối liên hệ giữa chi trả và cung cấp đã bị tách rời): those evading payment receive the same quality of supply as those who pay in full. The delinking of payment and supply reinforces the view described in step 1 that electricity is a right [and leads to] a low-quality, low-payment equilibrium.
Bài trước: Hong Kong chơi lớn
Tags: economics
There are plenty of places where private electricity is successful, and plenty of places where nationalized electricity fails to deliver. Yeah, the public/private conversation is a little different if there are inherent limits on competition, but this example hardly seems definitive.
The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) is an American federal agency operating in the Pacific Northwest. BPA was created by an act of Congress in 1937 to market electric power from the Bonneville Dam located on the Columbia River and to construct facilities necessary to transmit that power. Congress has since designated Bonneville to be the marketing agent for power from all of the federally owned hydroelectric projects in the Pacific Northwest. Bonneville is one of four regional Federal power marketing agencies within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
How can treating *health care* as a right undermine the aim of universal access to reliable*health care*? We argue that there are four steps. In step 1, because *health care* is seen as a right, subsidies, theft, and nonpayment are widely tolerated. Bills that do not cover costs, unpaid bills, --- an accepted part of the system. In step 2, *hospitals/clinics* —lose money with each unit of*health care* sold and in total lose large sums of money. Though governments provide support, at some point, budget constraints start to bind. In step 3, *hospitals/clinics* have no option but to ration supply by limiting access and restricting hours of supply. In effect, *hospitals/clinics* try to sell less of their product. In step 4, *health care* is no longer governed by market forces. The link between payment and supply has been severed: those evading payment receive the same quality of supply as those who pay in full. The delinking of payment and supply reinforces the view described in step 1 that *health care* is a right [and leads to] a low-quality, low-payment equilibrium.
When you're all alone, you can say what you want, practice whatever religion you like, etc. But where's your "right" to health care? To an abortion? To electricity, water, food, etc.?
Positive rights aren't rights.