Power outage problem, de-regulation, related issues... MY THOUGHTS!

[Sava]

Imran... utilities were once deregulated... it was called the 19th century. Trusts and robber barons exploited people. The middle class didn't exist. Sorry, but America has become the greatest nation in the world WITH regulated business. The middle class as it exists today wouldn't exist if progressives didn't enact legislation that evened the playing field and allowed the American people to build wealth. And I will oppose anyone who wishes to destroy these rules and foundations that made America the greatest country in the world just for the sake of corporate profits. Let me quote Teddy Roosevelt:

“The vast individual and corporate fortunes, the vast combinations of
capital which have marked the development of our industrial system,
create new conditions, and necessitate a change from the old attitude
of the State and the nation toward prosperity.… More and more it is
evident that the State, and if necessary the nation, has got to possess
the right of supervision and control as regards the great corporations
which are its creatures.”
— Theodore Roosevelt at the Minnesota State Fair
two weeks before assuming the presidency

[Imran Siddiqui]

utilities were once regulated... it was called the 19th century. Trusts and robber barons exploited people.

Yes... the 19th century had regulated water and sewage systems, and the robber barons exploited everyone and destroyed it all.

What, did you get your history education from Hollywood?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

utilities were once regulated... it was called the 19th century. Trusts and robber barons exploited people.

Yes... the 19th century had regulated water and sewage systems, and the robber barons exploited everyone and destroyed it all.

What, did you get your history education from Hollywood?

yeah, it's called a mistake, dipstick... I edited it like 5 seconds after I submitted it... but go ahead and change the subject... I understand because your position is weak.

[Dinner]

I'm with Spiffor on this one. Sure, regulation of vital services will never lead to the lowest possible price but all of the worst abuses are also eliminated. No price guaging, no rolling black outs, no Enrons from Texas ****ing **** up.

[Adam Smith]

I dont have time to go back and cut and paste and quote here, so just a few points.

How do you explain away the pirce data?

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.)

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.

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.

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.)

I'm off on vacation tomorrow morning, so I may or may not get back to this. Have fun.

[Sava]

You know what I just thought about? Remember how fast the pre-written Patriot Act legislation was passed after 9-11? I wonder if Bush will use this blackout as an opprotunity to pass some kind corporate-profiteering energy legislation and disguise it as a "modernization" bill.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I understand because your position is weak.

If my position is weak, yours is as strong as a poor, starving Ethiopian child .

Btw, the US became a world economic power BEFORE TR 'swept' those evil robber barons away (which is such a silly myth, I'm not suprised you took it as fact ).

[Berzerker]

St Leo -

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.

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 -

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

[Odin]

I am nominating Sava as Secretary of Comerce when I am elected president.

You libertarians need to get out of lala land and face the facts. Things may work in theory, but when it comes to the real world libertarians forget to put greed in the equation. Apparently our country needs to improve our history classes, you guys don't have a clue.

Even Oerdin is agreeing with us, guys. Give it up. I have not yet taken a economics class yet, but I can still see through the BS.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh great... here comes Tweedle-dum .

[Richelieu]

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

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Odin
Even Oerdin is agreeing with us, guys. Give it up. I have not yet taken a economics class yet, but I can still see through the BS.

Hold on there buddy. I just said I prefer regulation. I'm not agreeing whole hog with you guys.

My philosophy is "if it ain't broke don't fix it".

[Imran Siddiqui]

But in terms of energy, PEOPLE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE.

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.

[Sava]

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?

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.

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...