electricity, gas, water, food,............then driving, CO2 emitting, housing, travel, entertainment, drinking, breathing, shvtting, pissing, living...
like i said, for public utilities, they are SO heavily regulated, they might as well be government entities.
The irony is that if they were true free market non-monopoly utilities, i would bet water and power would be half as cheap as they are now and emit 10x less pollutants.
dullard
Elite Member
- May 21, 2001
- 26,048
- 4,695
- 126
Communal ownership of resources is also the very definition of a co-op. The line is very blurred between many people getting together and privately controlling something and many people getting together forming a government to control something. The co-ops around here tend to have very low utility prices.
Co-Ops aren't the same as what I am advocating which is a Municipality. Co-Ops only members can vote, but in a Municipality all people can vote.
what the hell? is OP dumb or something? competition will work itself. please educate yourself and take a look at the giant monopoly called ATT. check out what happened to them after the phone industry had been deregulated.
dullard
Elite Member
- May 21, 2001
- 26,048
- 4,695
- 126
What the OP suggested really has a lot of problems. Forced takeovers by the government isn't something that I'd advocate. So yes, that is very different.
But to lump all communal control into communism is wrong. And to define all communal control as bad (when you were dissing government control earlier) is also wrong.
Sad thing is, people around here tried to do it. But PG&E spent close to 15 million dollars on a campaign of lies and the measure to use ED to seize controle of PG&E assets was defeated. Sad indeed.
So
Lifer
- Jul 2, 2001
- 25,923
- 17
- 81
All communal control of anything IS wrong, when it is forced upon people by the government. In a capitalist society, people are (theoretically) free to withdraw from the system and form co-ops and communes. In fact, in the US, we have a LONG tradition of just that. From the early socialist communes of the 1860s to the hippies of the 1960s, economic freedom means, and IS political freedom. An openly structured free economy allows people to join their own groups if they so choose without forcing their ideology on others. Sounds like a plan to me.
So
Lifer
- Jul 2, 2001
- 25,923
- 17
- 81
So, PG&E used part of the money they earned legitimately to convince the people that some special interest group's smash and grab tactics -- a plan to use the power of the government to steal their hard earned system from them -- to defeat that measure? Sounds like the sponsors of the measure owe PG&E 15 million so they don't have to affect the rates of everyone.
dullard
Elite Member
- May 21, 2001
- 26,048
- 4,695
- 126
Ahh, finally some common ground. I just couldn't understand your earlier argument against people voluntarilly forming groups, and having that group control a utility (that is the very definition of a government). Like you said, that has been working well for ages so I couldn't figure out why you were opposed to it. You were opposed to forced membership of that group - but you support voluntary membership. Think about what I typed earlier and consider it in the light of voluntary memberships. In some cases, voluntary government control is the better option (such as a co-op). Usually it isn't, but it is in some cases.Originally posted by: So
All communal control of anything IS wrong, when it is forced upon people by the government. In a capitalist society, people are (theoretically) free to withdraw from the system and form co-ops and communes. In fact, in the US, we have a LONG tradition of just that. From the early socialist communes of the 1860s to the hippies of the 1960s, economic freedom means, and IS political freedom. An openly structured free economy allows people to join their own groups if they so choose without forcing their ideology on others. Sounds like a plan to me.
So
Lifer
- Jul 2, 2001
- 25,923
- 17
- 81
Originally posted by: dullard
Ahh, finally some common ground. I just couldn't understand your earlier argument against people voluntarilly forming groups, and having that group control a utility (that is the very definition of a government). Like you said, that has been working well for ages so I couldn't figure out why you were opposed to it. You were opposed to forced membership of that group - but you support voluntary membership. Think about what I typed earlier and consider it in the light of voluntary memberships. In some cases, voluntary government control is the better option (such as a co-op). Usually it isn't, but it is in some cases.Originally posted by: So
All communal control of anything IS wrong, when it is forced upon people by the government. In a capitalist society, people are (theoretically) free to withdraw from the system and form co-ops and communes. In fact, in the US, we have a LONG tradition of just that. From the early socialist communes of the 1860s to the hippies of the 1960s, economic freedom means, and IS political freedom. An openly structured free economy allows people to join their own groups if they so choose without forcing their ideology on others. Sounds like a plan to me.
With which I agree. Government oversight committees are essentially that -- power companies like regulation because it means they can make a guaranteed profit if they justify all their decisions and they are protected against anti-monopoly action. What I've been getting at all this time is this:
By putting the reigns of the monopoly power company directly in the hands of the government, all you are doing is dissolving that oversight. If you want to lower profits, fine. But arguing against any profit (which is often rolled into growth anyway, as well as a fundamental kitty for things like bad rate cases or error) is patently silly. If you have a problem with small reasonable profits, then you've lost me.
But people shouldn't be forced to buy power either.
Simply, I see the job of the government as not to "do" but to make sure that those who do are honest. If they become the "do-ers" there is a conflict of interest. (The obvious exceptions are uses of force, where it would be too easy for the whole system to be overthrown)
Heck, I can even imagine a system where roads were a regulated monopoly, but since they were built with tax funds, it would be REVERSE eminent domain -- stealing money from taxpayers to give to businessmen, and I don't support that either.
dullard
Elite Member
- May 21, 2001
- 26,048
- 4,695
- 126
I agree with that. Giving our shared property to specific businesses for profit is something I don't support. For example, giving our Alaska oil to oil companies for free or nearly free isn't something I support. If they paid $60/barrel (minus drilling and transport costs of course), sure let them take it. But why give away something I own to someone else for free?
Roads are a great example of where I'd perfer to have government do-ers. Sure some roads are private, but I hate stopping every 500 feet to pay another toll. That constant stopping makes the toll road take twice as long to drive on. Sure the roads are well maintained and sure there isn't much traffic. But I want to get from point A to point B fast. Until GPS systems are installed with auto billing for toll roads, I'll take the inefficient and bumpy government roads and get there 50% faster.
So
Lifer
- Jul 2, 2001
- 25,923
- 17
- 81
I was thinking more along the same lines as a regulated power system. Not that it matters, like you said, it'd be redistribution, but now it's a thought experiment, so here:
each state could allow a regulated monopoly to charge a monthly fee to use any roads in the state. Each state would have a reciprocity with other states, so if you paid your local utility you'd get use of all roads, toll free. You can assume that a certain percentage of your population would be "out of state" at any given time, and bill in much the same (flat fee) manner that an ISP or local calls do.
Nevertheless, our current system is based on user fees anyway (what do you think gas taxes are for
) so it's essentially the same system. A privately owned system would probably provide cheaper service or better roads, but it'd cost too much to privatize it in the first place. And in places like LA where the roads are overcapacity, it'd fall just like the overcapacity power grid did when they tried privatization...
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,784
- 6,344
- 126
Kinda tricky subject. I agree somewhat with everyone!
In Canada Electrical Utilities use to be Publicly Owned(Government Corporations) along with Telephone Corps. I suspect it was similar in the US, but can't say for sure as I don't really know. Anyway, the reasoning behind early Government Ownership was fairly sound and from it very good Service was achieved at a very good Price(certainly better price than what Private could provide at the time, usually). After awhile due to Infrastructure(power/phone lines, power plants/switching facilities(Operators/Electronic switchboards) and Standardization it became increasingly unnecessary for Public Ownership and Private Corps were able to provide the necessary essential Service. So the switch from Public to Private was made, but Government maintained a Regulatory role in order to ensure continued good operation of these essential Services. The Public made Private Corps still had a Monopoly, but then even that has been(process is well on the way) steadily moving toward more and more competition.
Does it make sense to reverse this process? Maybe. Before reversing it though, I think one needs to make a sound argument that the Private Sector has seriously failed to provide the essential service. Personally I just don't see that as the case. Sure, there will always be the Enrons who muck things up or others who make mistakes here or there, but overall the Private System is working quite well and the errors can be easily corrected through Government Regulatory actions(sometimes even this is unnecessary).
I think the role of Government in regards to these types of Services and Public Ownership works best when a New Technology comes on the horizon that will change everything. Electricity, Telephones, Radio/TV, and the Internet were all these types of technologies in recent history where Government direct involvement was good, in the early stages. After the establishment of them, Private Corps were and are sufficient and even better(in most cases) for the continuation of those Services.
In Canada Electrical Utilities use to be Publicly Owned(Government Corporations) along with Telephone Corps. I suspect it was similar in the US, but can't say for sure as I don't really know. Anyway, the reasoning behind early Government Ownership was fairly sound and from it very good Service was achieved at a very good Price(certainly better price than what Private could provide at the time, usually). After awhile due to Infrastructure(power/phone lines, power plants/switching facilities(Operators/Electronic switchboards) and Standardization it became increasingly unnecessary for Public Ownership and Private Corps were able to provide the necessary essential Service. So the switch from Public to Private was made, but Government maintained a Regulatory role in order to ensure continued good operation of these essential Services. The Public made Private Corps still had a Monopoly, but then even that has been(process is well on the way) steadily moving toward more and more competition.
Does it make sense to reverse this process? Maybe. Before reversing it though, I think one needs to make a sound argument that the Private Sector has seriously failed to provide the essential service. Personally I just don't see that as the case. Sure, there will always be the Enrons who muck things up or others who make mistakes here or there, but overall the Private System is working quite well and the errors can be easily corrected through Government Regulatory actions(sometimes even this is unnecessary).
I think the role of Government in regards to these types of Services and Public Ownership works best when a New Technology comes on the horizon that will change everything. Electricity, Telephones, Radio/TV, and the Internet were all these types of technologies in recent history where Government direct involvement was good, in the early stages. After the establishment of them, Private Corps were and are sufficient and even better(in most cases) for the continuation of those Services.
PowerEngineer
Diamond Member
- Oct 22, 2001
- 3,606
- 785
- 136
Yes, I work for a power utility too.
Private utilities are generally regulated monopolies within the service territories granted by the states. The persistent notion that these companies can somehow rake in huge profits is just plain ignorant. It's closer to the truth to say that overzealous regulation (heads I win, tails you lose) is making the utility business more risky than the rate of return allowed on capital investments. That's why so little money is being invested in electrical infrastructure.
Regulated monopolies are not extremely efficient, which is why the "free market" crusaders (from Texas) successfully pushed to partially deregulate the industry. The infusion of competition on the generation side has had some benefits, but the abuses (e.g. the California Energy Crisis) have also been extremely expensive.
My experience has been that government-run utilities (local, state, or federal) are generally less efficient than their private counterparts. They can often manage to provide lower rates through preferential access to resources (e.g. hydroelectric site licensing), tax-free bonding (requiring lower rates of interest), and sidestepping regulation (the Feds will get that right-of-way...). But they squander a lot of their inherent cost advantage through unfocused management and spending.
Just my two cents. There are always some exceptions. No offense meant to anyone.
That said, what really makes me laugh is when some governmental body arguing for a take-over claims they can lower rates because as a "public" utility they will avoid paying all those government taxes!
:Q
When enough people cannot afford the basic utilities like water and electricity they'll be a revolution so let em eat cake till then.
I wouldn't call the board of directors for a county and city board members a special interest group.
Most local governments couldnt afford to spend fair market value. Even the smallest power plants cost tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars.
So
Lifer
- Jul 2, 2001
- 25,923
- 17
- 81
I would certainly call a small group of politicians making a call for an act that will substantially increase their personal power a special interest group.
You seem to advocate theft and justify it on the grounds of convenience and mob rule. I hope to god you never get any power.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter