The Dynamics Simply Demonstrated, Of, How To Lawfully And Effectively, Smash Public/Private Partnership [PPPs] Monopolies, Of, Privatised Energy Industry Monopolies And Cartels, Supported In Such Partnerships By, Incompetent Govts Which Believe They Can Syphon Public Revenue From, Such Price Gouging Commercial Intent Of Such Essential Service Industry, Parasitic Corporatism. The Costs Savings Initiative Potential, Of Energy Saving Cooperatives Introduction When we observe negative issues of the economic rationalist policies of privatisation of essential services, such as for example, of the industries of health, communications, and energy, and its major infrastructure [such as observed of the data statistics in the following report link from NZ, radionz.co.nz/news/political/239723/surge-in-electricity-disconnections ] that aligns as parallel with virtually identical commercial market dynamics realised from virtually identical economic policy in Australia, we may further contemplate of, the ideological mismanagement ‘madness’ that commands such essential service industries, such as observed within, the energy industry, as observed directed by such economic policy for exploitation of its national populace, and their markets, that allows, and promotes, profiteering dynamically demonstrated by its constant performance outcomes, as for no other primary meaningful purpose, than, the sake of justifying its unsubstantiated economic ideology, then we may, well inquire what incompetent political Govt mismanagement directs such leadership incompetence? For from a best practice and competent management perspective, the question is further begged, where, is the benefit demonstrated by State or territorial Govts, as demonstrating such defiance of their obvious conflict of interest, relevant to, their definition as public entities charged with responsibility of regulating industry on behalf of the electorate and populace they are commercially exploiting, as further, in partnership with energy companies that observe such Public/Private Partnerships [PPPs], effective monopolies of Australian energy industry, its distribution chains, and markets? For since when did price gouging its populace and markets, translate as justifying such irrational intent to benefit the same populace from whom such wealth is being venally extracted? ……. So how may such economic policy be in any way construed as legitimate, …… far less demonstrating the competence of best practice economic management by Govts? Strategic Response Potential To Subversive Industry And Market Economic Policies. If in fact such economic management policy is subversive, and therefore illegitimate, as I contend, then, the potential for such corrupt intent to be itself subverted, may be readily and comparably demonstrated as further, readily accessible. Of such corresponding dynamic potential, I am confident I may readily demonstrate such dynamic as follows; Reverse Gearing Of Energy Industry Price Imposts By Pursuit Of Collective Market Power By application of reverse utilisation of such dynamics as I define, as, effectively changing the market paradigm of energy use for market consumers, from, that of clear weight of advantage to industry market profiteering, to, the compounding dynamics of energy cost saving, and as both inclusive, and following, of other, further, market cost savings, as, such performance outcomes may furthermore demonstrate, then, such a consumer market strategy, as exponential of its potential, and as corresponding, demonstrates such potential to annihilate the industry and market dominance of current energy industry monopolies in Australia, as into rapid decline, as further corresponding, to reversal of the market positions of, the dynamic definition of both parties - of the energy consumer market as currently exploited - and the energy monopolies as market predators. Hence, as I describe, the current subversive character of the current monopoly dynamics of the Australian energy industry, is comprehensively defined. Energy Consumer, Collective Market Power, Application By Utilisation Of Cooperative Dynamics. Retail Industry Application If we consider an example of 5 small business retailers in the same suburban location, which may, or may not be diverse of their industry and market definition, then, such a model offers an obvious demonstration of how the dynamics of such energy cost savings application as I define, actually perform. For if; [1] of such 5 retail entities, their aggregate average, monthly energy costs, of further example, amounted to $1,000 per month, then further, [2] if these 5 entities as viable ongoing concerns, were to form a cooperative, and of further example, [3] applied for a small, $5,000 loan from a bank or other financial institution, for, [4] purchasing and implementing an initial renewable energy utility to entirely offset the energy costs of one of their number, then, [5] by sharing such energy costs in their entirety, ‘the numbers may be demonstrated crunching’ as follows; [6] total monthly energy costs for the cooperative = $5,000 [7] aggregate average monthly energy cost for one cooperative member = $1,000 [8] total monthly energy costs for the cooperative after implementation of offsetting of energy costs of one cooperative member = $5,000 minus $1,000 = $4,000 [9] then aggregate average energy costs per month, per cooperative member = $800 [$4,000 divided by 5], [10] an immediate energy cost saving of $200 per month, per cooperative member [$1,000 minus $800 = $200], minus, [11] the monthly loan repayments for the renewable energy utility offset cost for one cooperative member. [12] So, if the cooperative have taken out a $5,000 commercial loan for such a renewable energy offset, and of further example, [13] have determined to pay that loan off at the rate of $400 a month, [14a] the energy costs savings calculation is assessed as; $4,000 total cooperative energy costs, + $400 per month loan repayments = $4,400 total energy costs per month. [14b] Therefore, $4,400 divided by 5 members = $880 aggregate average energy costs, per month, per cooperative member. [15] Therefore, the aggregate savings to each cooperative member =, original $1,000 aggregate average energy cost, minus, $880 resultant aggregate average energy costs per month, per cooperative member, [$1,000 minus $880 = $120] Therefore immediate resultant energy cost savings per month, per cooperative member = 12%, [or $120 as a % of $1,000] [16] However, if alternatively, the cooperative chooses to repay the renewable energy utility loan at the rate of $200 per month, the monthly average energy cost saving increases to $160, or 16%. [17a] For at the rate of $400 loan repayments per month, $4,800 of the $5,000 loan may be repaid within 12 months, therefore, if within 6 months the cooperative has repaid $2,400, or nearly half the loan, there is further revealed, [17b] every potential the bank or financial institution will extend the loan, or issue an additional loan to the cooperative, for, implementation of another renewable energy utility purchase for the commercial premises of a second member of the cooperative, toward the purpose of, [17c] increasing by double, the energy costs savings to the cooperative, and its members. [18] Then, the cooperative may determine the second or extended $5,000 renewable energy loan repaid at a rate of $200 a month, that in addition, to the first loan being repaid at a rate of $400 per month, = $600 per month loan repayments. [19] Then, the total costs of energy use to the cooperative would be reduced to $3,000 per month, or, a nominal 40% energy cost saving to all members of the cooperative. [20] Until the loans are repaid, the real savings calculated progressively are; $600 aggregate average energy cost per month, per cooperative member, +, $600 loan repayments [$400 + $200 = $600] per month divided by 5 = $120 per month per cooperative member, = $600 + $120 = $720 aggregate average energy costs, per month, per cooperative member, or, representing a real monthly energy cost saving for each cooperative member, of 28%, less whatever minimal administration costs apply. [21] It may then be observed such incremental cost savings regime may be repeated until all members of the cooperative are energy costs free, and as collectively, [22] continuing to accrue additional energy costs savings until such total energy costs freedom is achieved by all cooperative members. [23] Then the competitive market power such ‘small retailers’ of such a cooperative are able to demonstrate, may only be observed as delivering them a significant commercial competitive industry advantage or ‘edge.’ [24a] In fact, the model dynamics demonstrate even lesser retail entities, such as for example, shopping complex kiosks, may enter into participation with such collective cooperatives, that further, [24b] no matter what the size or scale of their energy costs, they are capable of participating equitably, where of further example, [24c] if their energy costs are rapidly diminished to nil, they still, retain the opportunity to sell their further cost savings gains to the cooperative, at, a rate fixed to any accrued rate of savings the cooperative is achieving at any given time, [i.e. a low fixed cooperative savings rate resale price may not be observed commercially lucrative to such a seller, however, as added to the expunging of their initial energy costs, may only, be assessed of competent management analysis, of such additional sale revenue as a ‘bonus’]. [25a] As further demonstrated, the potential for even individual household energy consumers to enter into similar cooperative arrangements, and, [25b] as demonstrated of the potential for extending inclusion of participation to those with lesser market power in the community [such as rental tenants of further example], [25c] once such cooperatives are established of a record of foundation of substance, such as demonstrated by its original foundation members becoming energy costs free, [25d] then such inclusive participation within the community [such as for rental tenant pensioners of further example], as demonstrated within the retail example of retail shopping complex kiosks, may be observed entirely viable. [26] It is then further demonstrated of such model cooperative savings, the higher the energy costs of a participating viable cooperative member or entity, that, raises the aggregate average of the energy costs of each participating member of the cooperative, the more, energy costs savings are gained [according to the dynamics of economies of scale], as able to be shared across the cooperative membership. Summary [27a] Then the retail example of such cooperative model, demonstrates such potentially significant competitive market advantage, once gained, industry competitors have little alternative other than to ‘follow suit,’ with the further potential of, [27b] the adoption of such a model proliferating into the wider community, effectively realising of such innovative market progression, a rapid decline of the current energy industry monopolies of Australia. Additional Once established, such cooperative models may pursue enhanced renewable energy technology for added savings, as exemplified of the following; Development In Solar Panels For Overcast Conditions grist.org/list/good-news-for-seattle-these-solar-panels-work-best-in-overcast-weather/?utm_source=facebook& .
Posted on: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 13:17:21 +0000