True, but could the incentuve be structured around the individual employee’s coffee shop (which would mean divulging the i individual coffee shops financials? That could make each employee look better out for the profitability of their coffee shop.
Yeah, I was not talking about this case in particular. For example, various international treaties are often very vaguely formulated, which has the concequence that practical law making gets done in the courts (which is too undemocratic). I would prefer the judiciary in such cases to e.g. rule that the parliment needs to make clearer rules and until that happens, the court adjourns the legal case.
This would move both power and responsibility to the parliament from the courts, which IMO would be healtier for democracy long-term.
Not specific to the Chevron deference, but I’ve always felt that judicial interpretation should be conservative, i.e. legal rulings should aim to not change society without a previous law change by the parliament. This would mean that the power to change how society works should lie with the parliament, not the judiciary.
I’m aware thus would also block some changes that I agree with, but longer term I think this would be much healthier for democracy.
Not OP, but to me it sounds line p-hacking aka bad science as well: If you slice a dataset en enough subsamples you will very likely find random correlations. That’s the nature of these kinds of analyses and we should be sceptical of conclusions that are based on suce analyses.
Negative prices do incentivize storage, because storage will alliw sellers to sell at a time with higher prices (i.e. when demand is greater relative to supply).
Isolated this is a zero sum game in favor of buyers (someone has ti take the electricity), but longer term, this shows there needs to be better greater electricity storage solutions available, i.e batteries or similar.