Well, here's what we can say: there is, fortunately, in this far from the best of the worlds "economic" sort of like news, which initially you don't even know how to comment on, so much they do not fit, not so much with classical economics, but and just common sense.
And which even such an inveterate cynic as your humble servant are able to plunge into a state of completely sincere amazement.
And somewhere even admiration.
Otherwise it would probably just be rather boring and uninteresting to live.
See for yourself.
Just as an example: the European Commission has proposed in principle to prohibit the extension of long-term contracts for gas imports to the EU after 2049.
And not just like that, imagine, but in order to "reduce dependence" on fossil fuels, which comes mostly from "totalitarian" Russia.
And this is by no means a joke, although it looks against the background of the ongoing - right now!
- the energy crisis in Europe is complete, excuse me, delirium.
This proposal is, as they say, "in all seriousness" - among other measures to decarbonize the European gas market.
Just to make it clear - some dry numbers.
According to the data of the London ICE exchange, the price of gas in Europe during trading on Thursday rose by almost 10% and rose above $ 1,700 per thousand cubic meters for the first time since the beginning of October. The numbers, you see, are very impressive. And at the same time, it is necessary to quite clearly understand that there is no downward trend in the long term. Yes, there are certain hopes that prices can win back a little on the short shoulder - such peaks are necessarily “won back” even in the classic stock market game, but if you look exactly in the future, then, in principle, there is no hope if the current trends persist. At the same time, we note separately that it is pipeline gas from Russia, and it is precisely gas that goes from there to Europe under long-term contracts, dampening speculative volatility in the exchange "spot" market, continues to regularly flow to European consumers.warming them this difficult winter. Moreover (and this is the most interesting in this particular case) arriving at prices about three times lower than the exchange ones.
And this is extremely beneficial for both European consumers and Russian suppliers.
Which, as it should be for serious manufacturers, are much more concerned about the stability of real supplies and the stability of planned incomes than speculative “price peaks”: this is how the market works.
And this is the whole main problem of the madness happening at the moment with the gas prices in Europe.
Now let's try to explain.
There is such a famous Latin phrase, brilliantly formulated at the beginning of our era by a certain Lucius Cassius, with the help of which one can practically accurately analyze the current state of, at least, the modern European economy: “Is fecit, cui prodest”.
In a very rough translation: "does the one who benefits", otherwise it would be stupid, sorry.
That is, sometimes it is not even necessary to investigate the current economic process (especially in the field of pricing), which sometimes is quite artificially bizarre.
You just need to understand, first of all, the beneficiaries of the process: in a speculative economy, this is most important.
And here, in general, everything is surprisingly simple.
And you can just look at what is called the "elimination method", which is well known to everyone since high school.
So.
Is it beneficial for consumers?
Obviously, no.
If you think otherwise, just show me a shopper in any store or market enjoying the high price.
And if he still justifies this joy with some sort of "economic" reasons, he does not even need to be sent to a psychiatrist, for there is clinical idiocy.
At the same time, the funny thing (we already wrote about this above) is not happy with such volatility and the supplier.
Who is interested in a stable average annual profit, and not this is all, among other things, also potentially leading to a decrease in demand.
And as a side effect - also to the fall of reputation.
Which, by the way, is what various “conditional Poles” are now trying to do with the Russian Gazprom.
And it's good at least that in old Europe, serious people understand perfectly well that this is "purely PR".
No, there are certainly some benefits for the supplier in the speculative price increase, of course, too.
But they are very seriously leveled by other factors on "long contracts", and it is somehow extremely stupid not to understand.
And, by the way, this kind of "peaks" are not very interesting for transit countries either - for exactly the same reasons set out above, albeit with their own specifics.
And consequently, among the real market participants, by and large, this kind of volatility is not interesting, in principle, to anyone.
Not to suppliers, not to consumers, not even to intermediary operators.
If only for traders, and even then not for everyone.
Consequently, the true beneficiary is outside continental Europe.
Although, in general, side by side.
Through a small, albeit dangerous, strait with the historical name of the English Channel.
Now let's try to explain.
Actually, no one is hiding this - for some reason it was the British who pushed the decisions on spot markets in continental Europe. By the way, they have nothing to do with these very markets. There is simply no need to invent anything, it is enough to look at what is called the “history of the issue” of making these decisions: in the days of the ever-memorable European Energy Commissioner, Latvian Andris Piebalgs. By a strange coincidence, it was entirely British consultants who were developing his "reforms", even before Brexit, and no one should have forgotten about this.
And the “consultants” did this not out of hatred for continental Europe and not out of natural Anglo-Saxon hatred for everything “continental-European” - everything is much simpler and more mundane: the beneficiaries of completely “legitimate” speculations in this case automatically end up in London, the “financial center the world ".
On the same ICE exchange, which is now setting the final "spot price" according to the Dutch hub TTF: nothing personal just business, sorry.
Someone has to make money.
This means that someone has to suffer.
And when the European Commission decides to fundamentally ban the extension of long-term contracts for gas imports to the EU after 2049, which - at the level of just current arithmetic - is obviously not beneficial to anyone except stock speculators from a country that recently left the EU with a scandal, this is certainly , just can not help but delight. These are the guys' short-term planning horizons. And such a quality, excuse me, is a thoroughly corrupt and illiterate "European economic elite". Who, by the way, act here not even in opposition to “totalitarian Russian suppliers” (which, in turn, are basically indifferent to internal European prices - they are interested in their own profit and stability of supplies, we repeat), but to the detriment of their own citizens and their own, continental, business.
Which, in the end, will have to pay for the growth of income of London stock speculators, their continental lobbyists and somewhere directly interested, but somewhere just incompetent "energy" European officials: a very funny "two-way", of course, it turns out.
And primitive.
But it works.
Not in the long term, of course - now the “2049 strategy” itself looks extremely ridiculous: by that time, the European Union is not a fact that it will continue to exist, at least in its current form.
But on the "short shoulder" in the stock exchange "economy of expectations", there is no doubt about it ", it is quite capable of bringing a certain benefit.
Here, after all, everything is simple - in speculation, as one well-known Italian statesman used to say in his time on a different, of course, occasion: "The goal is nothing, movement is everything."
People do not make money on the result.
The result here will be - if it is, of course, - for the European energy sector is obviously deplorable: the task is, in general, for a freshman.
But he, the result, is not at all interesting to these guys.
Everything is simple here: money does not bring them results.
And the process itself.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.