Discourse and Discussion - Cap/Com

[Az]

Originally posted by Arrian


Ned, is that you?

-Arrian

Yes.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Arrian
Energy is one of the industries where capitalism doesn't really do that well, IMO. That's because there are local monopolies... it's pretty hard to have the type of competition the free market is supposed to offer in the energy market. Therefore, companies can get away with the sort of bull**** Che mentioned, because a competitor can't come along and beat their prices without massive startup costs.

Or at least it seems that way to me (no expert on that am I).

-Arrian

Similar in principal to OPEC. Needs more competition in both cases.

[Arrian]

How, Ogie?

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Azazel

Yes.

Damn, I was hoping Ned & Tripledoc were the same guy... unless you're all THREE!

It's a conspiracy! You're all out to get me!



-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

It's very difficult to break a monopoly for gas, since you have to install pipes, and I doubt your competitors will share. One way to get around that is to install tanks and use trucks to cart the stuff around, though that carries physical risks.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber



I make up nothing and deal in reality. natural gas is immensely cleaner than oil or coal.

To penalize or prevent the natural gas producer makes no sense. If you are talking a tax, I probably wouldn't mind since the purchasers of the natural gas should be willing to pay more to buy something that would lessen the tax they would have to pay burning coal or oil

But if coal burning produces more polution then the coal producers will have to produce less or pay more tax. There will still be incentive to use natural gas, but not to the extreme. And there will be incentive for natural gas burners to do things efficiently as well.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Arrian
How, Ogie?

-Arrian

OPEC = Cartel of producers that dictate supply.

Natural gas Supplier have a local monopoly.

Both require additional independent suppliers to provide the impetus to break the supply stranglehold, but due to incredible market entry costs, ie.e barrier to entry the liklihood of such a new entity breaking into the market is very small.

[Japher]

Similar in principal to OPEC. Needs more competition in both cases.

OPEC is up in arms about limiting oil supplies so as not to inflate prices. Interesting, that if they keep prices low they will gaurentee future use instead of encourage alternative methods that just happen to be cleaner. However, with natural gas which is cleaner they are limiting supplies and inflating prices... Kind of a juxtaposition for the same cause.

polution isn't the only consideration. You have to consider the price and availability of subsitutes also. Why not just make it illegal to burn coal? Because we wouldn't benefit from it. That's why we should tax them equally for the polution they create. That will discourage some of it's use, but not all.

When I think pollution, I think waste. Not just waste that is released to the environment in the form of what many view pollution as, but waste in the form of unwarrented production costs, storage, firings and hirings, trainings, etc... anything that doesn't directly apply to the production of a product.

If you fine someone for enviro polluters, such as the EPA monitors and does, you end up with industries being created to control emissions. I know a guy who actually makes emission sensors for factories. Is this a waste? He has a job, but it is a job funded by those factories! The companies spending millions or billions of dollars on monitoring systems alone. Then take into account what it costs for the EPA to charge, fine, and enforce the laws... After all is said in done the financial measures that go into enforcing the control of this one type of pollution actually creates a totally different kind.

I'm not saying it is right or wrong, but a company owes it to itself to reduce pollution, of all kinds, regardless of regulations and current economic policies. Waste is waste, regardless of what form it comes in.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Azazel
Pretty much, with the mechanism of assigning value not being purely government held, but can be direct-democratic, to a certain degree ( there are ways of allowing this, from making it a civil duty similar to jury duty, or country/ society/ state-wide polling that would assign general directions to items, with the polling being made at home, in front of your TV, via your 3G cellphone, on your PDA, your laptop, etc.

You can also see how much is left in the store. How much people are willing to pay for something is a good indication of value.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It's very difficult to break a monopoly for gas, since you have to install pipes, and I doubt your competitors will share. One way to get around that is to install tanks and use trucks to cart the stuff around, though that carries physical risks.

Yep. Tough nut to crack, that one. I (where "I" = Arrian as all-powerful leader of the American civ ) might have to concede that particular industry to public control (or maybe just the pipeline infrastructure).

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


OPEC = Cartel of producers that dictate supply.

Natural gas Supplier have a local monopoly.

Both require additional independent suppliers to provide the impetus to break the supply stranglehold, but due to incredible market entry costs, ie.e barrier to entry the liklihood of such a new entity breaking into the market is very small.

No, that's not what I meant. How do you break the monopoly?

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
Energy is one of the industries where capitalism doesn't really do that well, IMO. That's because there are local monopolies... it's pretty hard to have the type of competition the free market is supposed to offer in the energy market. Therefore, companies can get away with the sort of bull**** Che mentioned, because a competitor can't come along and beat their prices without massive startup costs.

Or at least it seems that way to me (no expert on that am I).

-Arrian

The thing is that energy is scarce and needs to be allocated efficiently with minimal polution. Using the price mechanism to do that is exploitive.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Japher


OPEC is up in arms about limiting oil supplies so as not to inflate prices. Interesting, that if they keep prices low they will gaurentee future use instead of encourage alternative methods that just happen to be cleaner. However, with natural gas which is cleaner they are limiting supplies and inflating prices... Kind of a juxtaposition for the same cause.

True OPEC always needs to be wary of oil pricing as more difficult to extract resources can be tapped. Likewise they see the benefit of keeping the economies humming to drive demand.

OTOH gas suppliers alos need be wary as other alternatives are availble in certain areas. Those borderline areas often are ripe for conversion to heat pumps, oil furnaces, and the like.

When I think pollution, I think waste. Not just waste that is released to the environment in the form of what many view pollution as, but waste in the form of unwarrented production costs, storage, firings and hirings, trainings, etc... anything that doesn't directly apply to the production of a product.

If you fine someone for enviro polluters, such as the EPA monitors and does, you end up with industries being created to control emissions. I know a guy who actually makes emission sensors for factories. Is this a waste? He has a job, but it is a job funded by those factories! The companies spending millions or billions of dollars on monitoring systems alone. Then take into account what it costs for the EPA to charge, fine, and enforce the laws... After all is said in done the financial measures that go into enforcing the control of this one type of pollution actually creates a totally different kind.

I'm not saying it is right or wrong, but a company owes it to itself to reduce pollution, of all kinds, regardless of regulations and current economic policies. Waste is waste, regardless of what form it comes in.

I'm sure this will simply be viewed as more of the cry me a river tripe by those arguing for harsher company compliance.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Similar in principal to OPEC. Needs more competition in both cases.

So that you can give corporations incentive not to buy as much oil? Isn't that robbing Peter to pay Paul?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Japher
When I think pollution, I think waste. Not just waste that is released to the environment in the form of what many view pollution as, but waste in the form of unwarrented production costs, storage, firings and hirings, trainings, etc... anything that doesn't directly apply to the production of a product.

If you fine someone for enviro polluters, such as the EPA monitors and does, you end up with industries being created to control emissions. I know a guy who actually makes emission sensors for factories. Is this a waste? He has a job, but it is a job funded by those factories! The companies spending millions or billions of dollars on monitoring systems alone. Then take into account what it costs for the EPA to charge, fine, and enforce the laws... After all is said in done the financial measures that go into enforcing the control of this one type of pollution actually creates a totally different kind.

I'm not saying it is right or wrong, but a company owes it to itself to reduce pollution, of all kinds, regardless of regulations and current economic policies. Waste is waste, regardless of what form it comes in.

I don't think this is much of a cost. Maybe for smaller corporations, but then thats why you allow a miniimum amount.