Should all utilities be publicly owned and controlled?

[UCDAggies]

Private utility companies such as PG&E or SoCal Eddison need to make a profit for their shareholder so they have to charge more for energy. Public owned and operated companies don't make a profit, so they can be run more efficiently. I don't see why local governments aren't seizing control of private owned electric and other utility companies.

 

[FoBoT]

no
unless you are talking about communist countries, then i guess they like it that way

 

[slsmnaz]

Gov't owned means more efficient in what country? I know you don't mean the US.

 

[NuclearNed]

If you are ok with eroding freedoms and nanny states, then public utilities might be right up your alley.

 

[UCDAggies]

You can see have capitalism, just with no essential goods.

 

[slsmnaz]

Originally posted by: UCDAggies
You can see have capitalism, just with no essential goods.

And who designates essential Mr Chavez?

 

[Kirby]

Our power back at home is co-op and it works out pretty good.

 

[Safeway]

No, they are not a bad thing. Austin Electric offers some of the lowest rates in Texas. They charge half of what TXU charges in Dallas. Austin Electric is a city-owned monopoly, but that is great for the city and Austin residents. The city makes tons of money, and the residents save tons of money.

 

[UCDAggies]

Originally posted by: nkgreen
Our power back at home is co-op and it works out pretty good.

In a Co-Op do all of the citizens get to vote for the board members?

After some googling it seems not every citizen gets to vote in a Co-Op and the elections aren't on the November Ballots.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: UCDAggies
Private utility companies such as PG&E or SoCal Eddison need to make a profit for their shareholder so they have to charge more for energy. Public owned and operated companies don't make a profit, so they can be run more efficiently. I don't see why local governments aren't seizing control of private owned electric and other utility companies.

Nationalization would require an act of congress at the minimum. Not to mention I think it would get shot down quickly in the courts and rightfully so. The economic implications of outright theft (theoretically trillions of dollars) from millions of domestic and international investors bears some contemplation.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: slsmnaz

Originally posted by: UCDAggies
You can see have capitalism, just with no essential goods.

And who designates essential Mr Chavez?

The wise all knowing government of course.

Oil products....essential. Nationalize the oil and gas industry.
Food....essential. Nationalize the farm system, food wholesalers, and retail outlets.
Cars and trucks....essential. Nationalize automotive industry.
Housing....essential. Nationalize construction and financing companies.

etc....

 

[UCDAggies]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: UCDAggies
Private utility companies such as PG&E or SoCal Eddison need to make a profit for their shareholder so they have to charge more for energy. Public owned and operated companies don't make a profit, so they can be run more efficiently. I don't see why local governments aren't seizing control of private owned electric and other utility companies.

Nationalization would require an act of congress at the minimum. Not to mention I think it would get shot down quickly in the courts and rightfully so. The economic implications of outright theft (theoretically trillions of dollars) from millions of domestic and international investors bears some contemplation.

I am not talking about Nationalization, but rather local owned. Cities and counties seize control of the power lines and such and providing electricity them self.

 

[Aharami]

since when is anything in the govt more efficient than private?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: UCDAggies

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: UCDAggies
Private utility companies such as PG&E or SoCal Eddison need to make a profit for their shareholder so they have to charge more for energy. Public owned and operated companies don't make a profit, so they can be run more efficiently. I don't see why local governments aren't seizing control of private owned electric and other utility companies.

Nationalization would require an act of congress at the minimum. Not to mention I think it would get shot down quickly in the courts and rightfully so. The economic implications of outright theft (theoretically trillions of dollars) from millions of domestic and international investors bears some contemplation.

I am not talking about Nationalization, but rather local owned. Cities and counties seize control of the power lines and such and providing electricity them self.

You propose to seize substantial assets that were paid for by private money that exist on the books of companies as owned assets. Same difference.

 

[UCDAggies]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: UCDAggies

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: UCDAggies
Private utility companies such as PG&E or SoCal Eddison need to make a profit for their shareholder so they have to charge more for energy. Public owned and operated companies don't make a profit, so they can be run more efficiently. I don't see why local governments aren't seizing control of private owned electric and other utility companies.

Nationalization would require an act of congress at the minimum. Not to mention I think it would get shot down quickly in the courts and rightfully so. The economic implications of outright theft (theoretically trillions of dollars) from millions of domestic and international investors bears some contemplation.

I am not talking about Nationalization, but rather local owned. Cities and counties seize control of the power lines and such and providing electricity them self.

You propose to seize substantial assets that were paid for by private money that exist on the books of companies as owned assets. Same difference.

They should be compensated for the fair market value. The local government can use eminent domain.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: Aharami
since when is anything in the govt more efficient than private?

it isn't
mr chavez is just going to ignore that fact, well not ignore it, turn it 180 degrees around and claim that govt. run is more efficient when it is a fact that govt. run is piss poor due to no competition

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: UCDAggies

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: UCDAggies

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: UCDAggies
Private utility companies such as PG&E or SoCal Eddison need to make a profit for their shareholder so they have to charge more for energy. Public owned and operated companies don't make a profit, so they can be run more efficiently. I don't see why local governments aren't seizing control of private owned electric and other utility companies.

Nationalization would require an act of congress at the minimum. Not to mention I think it would get shot down quickly in the courts and rightfully so. The economic implications of outright theft (theoretically trillions of dollars) from millions of domestic and international investors bears some contemplation.

I am not talking about Nationalization, but rather local owned. Cities and counties seize control of the power lines and such and providing electricity them self.

You propose to seize substantial assets that were paid for by private money that exist on the books of companies as owned assets. Same difference.

They should be compensated for the fair market value. The local government can use eminent domain.

What the government determines is "fair market value" is anything but. My family's company has had property taken with ED and "fair market value" according to the gov typically ends up being 25% to 50% of the actual values. You can take it to court but the odds of it coming out in your favor are very slim. It is legal theft, period.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Aharami
since when is anything in the govt more efficient than private?

:thumbsup:

 

[kevnich2]

On some levels, this seems like a good idea but for the federal or even on alot of levels the state government to "seize" control of utilities and then provide the services themselves, IMO would prohibit development of new technology. If the government had complete control of all telecommunication lines, do you think they would upgrade anything to stay ahead of technology. Granted, the US is still very far behind other countries with regard to our telco infrastructure but because of private companies owning them, they are very slowly being upgraded. As far as ED is concerned, I think it was developed with the right intentions and then by misuse of powers, abused severely. When the govt comes along and takes property just because another large company came along and told the govt that it would pay them some number over what it's worth if they seize it and sell it to the private company, that should be illegal but through ED, it's legal for them to do.

 

[weeber]

Originally posted by: K1052

What the government determines is "fair market value" is anything but. My family's company has had property taken with ED and "fair market value" according to the gov typically ends up being 25% to 50% of the actual values. You can take it to court but the odds of it coming out in your favor are very slim. It is legal theft, period.

QFT, the state of Indiana took a took a large portion of my grandfather's dairy farm to build a road right through it under ED. Cut-off the cows from their pasture. They got nowhere near market value. Took it to court, and ended up still not getting the fair compensation. After court fees, it all ended up being a wash anyways. You know the saying, can't fight city hall.

 

[UCDAggies]

Bid difference in using ED on a small mom and pop, and on a big corporation. The corporation shouldn't have any rights to that land, even if they paid for it. Remember they are big and rich, and probably stole the land from a mom and pop shop.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: UCDAggies
Bid difference in using ED on a small mom and pop, and on a big corporation. The corporation shouldn't have any rights to that land, even if they paid for it. Remember they are big and rich, and probably stole the land from a mom and pop shop.

Uh, that company has stockholders. Most of those stockholders own their positions via mutual funds/ETFs which are held by millions of ordinary people. Those are the people you are ultimately stealing from. There is no such thing as a free lunch.


Ah yes, I wondered how long it would take before the "evil corps" justification would turn up. I guess my family company ranks among those since we are incorporated. Our business would be a ton easier if things actually were as you think, but alas they aren't.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: UCDAggies
Private utility companies such as PG&E or SoCal Eddison need to make a profit for their shareholder so they have to charge more for energy. Public owned and operated companies don't make a profit, so they can be run more efficiently. I don't see why local governments aren't seizing control of private owned electric and other utility companies.

:laugh:

I work for a power company. Let me tell you, power companies' "profits" are so tightly controlled by the PUC (Public Utilities Commission) that we have to seek approval for ANY major project. Profits are existent but slim. By making power companies publicly owned, you take away all incentive to make the company efficient since you remove the need to make the most of that razor thin margin. Furthermore, you take away ALL oversight. A publicly owned company has to answer only to bureaucrats, not a distrustful public board and not a skeptical set of shareholders.

Sure, you can seize control of the power company, if you want to throw the sheep to the wolves and yourself to higher rates.

 

[dullard]

This thread will just be filled with anti-government people who will spout their theory without data and without ever considering anything anyone else says. It is the sad truth about those types of people.

In most cases, governmental control is inefficient. Thus, it should be avoided in most cases. You don't want government control of stores, most industry, etc. But that doesn't mean it is bad in all cases.

Also, we aren't talking government control vs. a competetive market. It is government control vs a monopoly/duopoly. Thus, we don't get the benefits of true competition. We are comparing inefficient government to inefficient monopoly.

When it comes to utilites, generally the bigger the cheaper. Building an entire water treatment plant for a town of 300 is a huge waste; instead combine that town with other nearby towns and build just one plant.

If the choice is many private monopolies vs one large government utility, it'll be far more efficient and far cheaper to have the large government controlled utility. If the choice is many local utilities vs one large private monopoly, I'd choose the large monopoly any day.

The worst situation of all though, is to routinely switch from regulation to deregulation. Each time there is a switch (either way) the customers suffer.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: dullard
If the choice is many private monopolies vs one large government utility, it'll be far more efficient and far cheaper to have the large government controlled utility. If the choice is many local utilities vs one large private monopoly, I'd choose the large monopoly any day.

:laugh:

You are a fool for saying that. I reiterate, if you put utilities in the hands over the government, all you're doing is taking away government oversight. A regulated monopoly is far preferable because the government generally takes an adversarial tack with the company. If you make them all fellow bureaucrats, do you think it'll be MORE efficient?

Come ON...

There is no good reason for a government monopoly -- the government's job is to oversee and regulate existing monopolies. If it's their fingers in the pot, there is no regulation. It's no different from you suggesting that we take away government oversight entirely.