Some Friendly Comments on True Electric Deregulation Part 8

Prof. Banks responded my respectful apology and rebuttal of Some Friendly Comments on True Electric Deregulation Part 7>

I first saw the concept 'faulty deregulation' right after the California deregulation meltdown, and it was put forward several times at a fairly recent conference in Hong Kong. Needless to say I tuned out, because I'm too smart to become involved in taking something simple and making it complicated.
More important, everything that I ever wanted/needed to say about electric deregulation I say in the above article. I am - as I note - supported by the evidence, but I don't really care about that, since my specialty is theory. From the point of view of theory, the right kind of theory, electric deregulation is a loser. I also suspect that it's a bad career move to try to sell deregulation to persons who have been badly burned by it.

As I mentioned, I met the late Professor Schweppe, and was duly impressed. But he was wrong about deregulation. As for him receiving a Nobel Prize, as you suggest, Nobel prizes in economics are passed out by the ignorant members of the Nobel committee on the basis of what they can or think that they can receive from the laureates. This would very likely have put Fred Schweppe out of contention even if he were still alive.

Finally, Patrick O'Rourke suggests that I am an ideologue. No, Patrick and José, I am not an ideologue: where this topic is concerned I am a fanatic, because it involves my MONEY. Why should I give up a long weekend in Paris this year because busybody politicians have listened to some crank academics, and try to keep this deregulation scam on the rails?