 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:30
|
|
St Leo - quote:
There is such a thing as taxation. Service fees should cover maintenance, not expansion. |
And just what are those "taxes"? Profits under a different name? So, we should be taxed to subsidise farmers to create their ability to expand instead of them making their own decisions about what price to charge and how to expand? Who is more qualified to make those decisions, the farmers or the politicians? It's no coincidence that Americans pay more than much of the world for food staples like sugar, because they are subsidised now.
quote:
This is the point where libertarians enter the discussion saying that everyone should buy personal generators and those who can't afford one should get a better job. After all, everyone can have a better job at the same time and there is no luck involved. |
Is that what we say? Thanks, but we don't need you to speak for us...
Sava - quote:
Sorry Berz, history proves you wrong yet again. Before the creation of government regulation, robber barons exploited the country. Then, Roosevelt championed legislation to dismantle utility monopolies, and in 1935 Congress passed the Federal Power Act, requiring the Federal Power Commission to set "just and reasonable" wholesale electricity prices. The situation we are in is because of greedy corporate profiteering types like Ken Lay and their abuses of the free market. Regulations are in place to prevent abuses. Sure, they do constrain the expansion of business in some form, but IMO they prevent market bubbles... and for a good reason... bubbles burst. People want stable utilities and not a deregulated marketplace where disasters can occur. |
Does all that mean energy supply is regulated by government? I have to ask because it sounds like you just made my point - we don't have a free market. Yes, Sava, it was those "robber barons" who caused California's problem, not the "environmentalists" who convinced enough people with crap like "The China Syndrome" to dump other energy sources like nuclear. 
quote:
The two are completely different issues that require different solutions. Your libertarian "one-size-fits-all" anarchtic approach to things is not... I repeat... NOT a good solution. Each problem needs study and solutions beneficial to America... NOT JUST KEN LAY... but the people. |
Another dodge, you don't see a parallel here? I sure do, in both cases government intervened in the marketplace and in both cases people "like" you blame the results on a non-existent marketplace.
quote:
In addition... this most recent blackout and the cascading effect occurred because the power companies did not comply with VOLUNTAIRY safety regulations. This is according to former Energy Secretary Bill Richardson. |
So he already found out what happened? That was quick, how did he adduce the cause from his governor's mansion in New Mexico? I can already tell you why it happened, because government regulations created regional grids so if a problem occured in one spot, a cascading effect took down more than the effected area. Something like 9 nuclear plants shut down, not because they had a problem, but because a problem somewhere else on the grid shut them down. Now, that wasn't a result of the marketplace, that's the result of government meddling.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Smith
With major blackouts in 65, 77, and possibly some others during regulated periods, how can we attribute the current blackout to deregulation? (Pending any actual supporting evidence, which nobody has at this time.) |
They were different kinds of blackouts with different causes. Deregulation creates an environment where corporations are less likely to invest in maintenance and upgrade because it will cut into their profits. If they make more money cutting jobs and quality, where is the incentive to keep their system at the highest possible quality? It's not as if people are going to boycott power. That's the only check in capitalism... consumers have the power to not buy a business's products or services. But in terms of energy, PEOPLE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE. Energy is too essential to daily life. Those natural checks and balances don't exist. And when those protections don't exist, the government must regulate business to protect the consumer.
quote:
The fact that electric power was regulated in the 1930's does not mean it should be regulated now. Competitive markets can be much more readily supported today due to technological change which allows smaller generating plants and better transmission over greater distances. |
Deregulation DOES NOT give competition. Such regulations trace back to the trust-busting days when the FREE MARKET allowed monopolies to arise. Capitalism does not naturally foster competition in ALL CASES. Especially when the business requires extensive investment just to start. This isn't a mom and pop operation where some random vendor can offer people alternatives to the big companies. Only big companies can compete. And that, frankly, is ANTI-FREE-MARKET.
quote:
Note also that local distribution is still a natural monopoly (makes no sense to have two distribution companies in the same city) and still needs to be regulated. |
Let's cut out the middlemen altogether. That decreases costs.
quote:
How is a service provided at zero profit different than a service provided in a competitive market where profits are zero? (Note that "profits" as economists use the term, includes a competitive return on the capital the firm uses.) |
It's very different. There are different costs associated with businesses and non-profit state-run or state-regulated industries. Strange Adam Smith, I figured an intelligent person such as yourself would know about such differences. If a dumbass like me does, certainly you do. 
quote:
I'm off on vacation tomorrow morning, so I may or may not get back to this. Have fun. |
you too, have fun on vacation... 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Richelieu
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001
time: 00:30
|
|
At the same time the 24hrs news channel of CBC (French) started reporting about this yesterday, the ticker at the bottom of the screen read "Quebec government approves Hydro-Quebec's request for a 6% hike in electricity rates"
No, it's not a joke.
Sitting there with my AC on, watching the coverage, i didn't really mind.
Domestic rates taken from Hydro-Quebec's website. (before yesterday's announced hike)
Energy (’/kWh)
° First 30 kWh per day - 4.74’
° Remaining energy consumption - 5.97’
http://www.hydro-quebec.com/rates/tarifs_d.html
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
|
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Does all that mean energy supply is regulated by government? I have to ask because it sounds like you just made my point - we don't have a free market. Yes, Sava, it was those "robber barons" who caused California's problem, not the "environmentalists" who convinced enough people with crap like "The China Syndrome" to dump other energy sources like nuclear. |
Do you have any facts to support your assertion that environmentalists caused the Energy Crisis? 
quote:
Another dodge, you don't see a parallel here? I sure do, in both cases government intervened in the marketplace and in both cases people "like" you blame the results on a non-existent marketplace. |
What dodge? Of course I'm not going to comment on an irrelevant case. Government regulation causing these problems? So laws against murder cause murders? Laws against theft create theft? Sorry Berzerker, that bird doesn't fly. Drugs and energy are too very different topics. Can you name some of the energy regulations that you want erased from legislation? Name the regulations, explain what they do, and we can debate them individually. My gut tells me you don't have a clue about what the regulations actually regulate.
quote:
So he already found out what happened? That was quick, how did he adduce the cause from his governor's mansion in New Mexico? I can already tell you why it happened, because government regulations created regional grids so if a problem occured in one spot, a cascading effect took down more than the effected area. Something like 9 nuclear plants shut down, not because they had a problem, but because a problem somewhere else on the grid shut them down. Now, that wasn't a result of the marketplace, that's the result of government meddling. |
The regional grids were created BY deregulation Berz...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
|
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
My philosophy is "if it ain't broke don't fix it". |
As opposed to Imran's "if it ain't broke, let's break it!" philosophy.
quote:
Sava, you continually ignore that no one has deregulated the local energy provider. In fact that is secured, usually, by government monopoly. Deregulation comes into play in the energy generation! And smaller plants can compete... it ain't just the big boys anymore. |
Sorry Imran, but I want ONE entity controlling generation and distribution. I don't want a middleman inflating prices for the sake of inflating profits. I'm a firm believer that it only takes so much money to do something. I want one entity (I don't care if it's government-run or government regulated) to generate electricity and distribute it. No corporate bonuses, no fatcats wasting money. I want workers to get fair pay, and a DEMOCRATICALLY elected official to oversee the system.
You believe in Democracy right? I mean, you wouldn't want the US to become an authoritarian entity. So why do you want such entities in charge of energy production? These people aren't accountable to anyone, and they have no incentive to provide cost-effective services to consumers. Their primary goal is PROFIT! I'm sorry, call me a dirty, stupid, pinko, liberal, commie bastard... but I feel that a power provider's primary goal should be to provide a reliable, efficient, and cost-effective service. But hey, that's just me.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
As opposed to Imran's "if it ain't broke, let's break it!" philosophy. |
No, my "even if it ain't broke, make it better" philosophy  . Unlike you I'm not content to stagnate.
quote:
Sorry Imran, but I want ONE entity controlling generation and distribution. |
And I don't! I don't want some inefficient, bloated, unresponsive, and untouchable government entity controlling everything. What happens if they **** up? Ooops, too bad, can't get rid of them because they are the only thing out there.
quote:
You believe in Democracy right? I mean, you wouldn't want the US to become an authoritarian entity. So why do you want such entities in charge of energy production? |
You believe in Democracy right? I mean, you wouldn't want the US to be ruled by one party and have no choice if they mess up? So why would you want one entity in charge of energy production?
I don't care that their primary goal is profit, that's a good thing. As you've said before, you like capitalism. It is BECAUSE they are in it for profit, that you get more efficient energy generation. If there is absolutely no chance of competition, why would the US Energy company give two shits about what they were doing?
I'd rather have the prospect of better, more efficient service, with some reason to improve, rather than a bloated, non-caring, no-incentive behemoth which controls everything.
As the telephone industry has shown, deregulation can work wonders in reducing prices and increasing services, while government monopolies like Amtrack stagnate and squander money.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
|
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
You believe in Democracy right? I mean, you wouldn't want the US to be ruled by one party and have no choice if they mess up? So why would you want one entity in charge of energy production? |
Sorry, but WE control the government. Sure, it's one entity, but an entity controlled and representative of the people.
quote:
It is BECAUSE they are in it for profit, that you get more efficient energy generation. If there is absolutely no chance of competition, why would the US Energy company give two shits about what they were doing?
|
Because Democracy = Accountability. Corporations = no accountability. Capitalism gives consumers limited opprotunity to hold business accountable. By not buying products or services. But when you take away that option (by having an essential service in private hands) that company has no accountability whatsoever.
quote:
I'd rather have the prospect of better, more efficient service, with some reason to improve, rather than a bloated, non-caring, no-incentive behemoth which controls everything. |
And deregulation won't do this. Unless you want 10 different sets of power lines running to your house. Frankly, I just need 1. And what happens to a corporation when they know their demand is never going to go away? They lose their incentive to provide an efficient service. You seem to have this warped idea about business Imran. You believe business cares about it's consumers. Newsflash. They don't.
In fact, the "incentive" created by the possibility of profit, is an incentive to engage in unethical accounting practices, an incentive to cut quality costs, to cut jobs... in practice, deregulation lowers quality, lowers reliability, and since it is an essential service, there is no way consumers can BOYCOTT or take their business elsewhere.
I'm sorry you don't have faith in America, Imran. But I do. I think Americans CAN have efficient government services. The problem is we have to get rid of corporate funded bureaucrats that stand in the way of this goal.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-08-2003 03:21
|