A Typical Night of Left Wing Bias From 60 Minutes

[Dinner]

Nothing is fool proof or perfect in this world. Every thing and I do mean everything is subject to being miss used, however, that doesn't mean we should just give everything up or stop using technics which are effective in the right circomstances. We just need to be aware of the limitations each technique has so that we don't rely upon them to do things thay cannot accurately do.

Used correctly both data bases will help solve many crimes faster then we are able to do today.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Engineers do get promoted into management.

I'm just wondering why you deemed them experts because 99.9% of them aren't qualified in economics or even dealing with a power grid.

[Berzerker]

Power generation is a natural monopoly, or at least it leads to cartels. It takes truckloads of $ to start a power company.

It isn't natural, it's just what happens when government uses "taxes" to benefit friends in high places. The building of the transcontinental railroad is a good example - a man named Judah got investors to fund the building of a railway over the Sierra Nevadas from Sacramento to Reno, but politicians used our "taxes" to enrich special interests who were competing to build the rail across the USA. Needless to say, all that "free" money made it difficult for the private sector to compete.

[DanS]

I was "touched" by the general in charge of US forces in NK crying on national TV.

[Dinner]

I saw that that bit. He got all puffy eyed when they asked him about how it made him feel when the U.S. flag was burned by SK nationalists/anarchists/communist groups.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
I'm just wondering why you deemed them experts because 99.9% of them aren't qualified in economics or even dealing with a power grid.

1. What is "qualified?"
2. How do you know they aren't?

Interesting assumptions.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
It isn't natural, it's just what happens when government uses "taxes" to benefit friends in high places. The building of the transcontinental railroad is a good example - a man named Judah got investors to fund the building of a railway over the Sierra Nevadas from Sacramento to Reno, but politicians used our "taxes" to enrich special interests who were competing to build the rail across the USA. Needless to say, all that "free" money made it difficult for the private sector to compete.

Hm, the very fact that you have just a few railways instead of gazillions means that the barrier to entry is extremely high, which is the same thing with power generation.

Tax or no tax will not make a difference.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
1. What is "qualified?"
2. How do you know they aren't?

Interesting assumptions.

Qualified as in people with economics degrees and experience in the field.

I think it's a pretty safe assumption that most electrical engineers are unqualified when talking about the effects of privatizing the power grid.

It's certainly not appropriate to consider them "experts" like you did.

[Berzerker]

Sheik -

And as the other guy pointed out you can put on gloves to prevent showing your fingerprints but we still have a lot of criminals that don't do it.

I can be a somewhat incompetent criminal and still get an altered gun (even without my knowledge). If more crimes were solved, you'd see more criminals using gloves. But since the system is so overwhelmed thanks to the drug war, there isn't much risk in getting caught based only on fingerprints except maybe for crimes like murder and rape. But theft is largely ignored...so often, the victims of theft are told there's almost no chance they will ever see their property again.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Asher

Qualified as in people with economics degrees and experience in the field.

I think it's a pretty safe assumption that most electrical engineers are unqualified when talking about the effects of privatizing the power grid.

It's certainly not appropriate to consider them "experts" like you did.

You also can't rely on economists who know sh1t about power generations and distributions.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
Qualified as in people with economics degrees and experience in the field.

In what field, power generation?

Originally posted by Asher
I think it's a pretty safe assumption that most electrical engineers are unqualified when talking about the effects of privatizing the power grid.

It's certainly not appropriate to consider them "experts" like you did.

You probably don't know what takes to be a Fellow. You could have asked.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
You also can't rely on economists who know sh1t about power generations and distributions.

The stuff in dispute isn't the technicalities of it (it's been proven in many regions to be entirely feasable), but the economic impact of it on a particular region and set of laws.

Besides, despite the somewhat deceptive term "electric engineer" most people in the IEEE do stuff like design ASICs rather than do anything remotely related to a power grid...

Alberta privatized power a few years back. The first year the prices spiked due to missteps in the process (the government didn't make the regulations and rules for the private market available until just under a year before privatization, so the electric companies didn't make new plants as needed). Since then the prices have resumed normal levels, and now customers have a choice from several power companies.

The competition has forced them to look at alternate ways to grab customers: one company (Enmax) allows you to supply your home with power 100% generated from Wind, for example...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
In what field, power generation?

You probably don't know what takes to be a Fellow. You could have asked.

IEEE fellows are people they deem as making important contributions to the field of engineering science, in what way does this classify them as experts in privatizing electricity grids?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
You also can't rely on economists who know sh1t about power generations and distributions.

Why do you think the issues with power deregulation has anything to do with power generations and distributions? It's more than possible, it's been done many times before, what's in question is the economics behind it -- when it should be done, and to what extent...

[Berzerker]

UR -

Hm, the very fact that you have just a few railways instead of gazillions means that the barrier to entry is extremely high, which is the same thing with power generation.

Tax or no tax will not make a difference.

If you're part of a consortium of investors building a railway among a group of cities, it sure does matter if you're taxed to support a politically connected competitor. The reason we see only a few rail systems now is because the government subsidised airlines while regulating the hell out of the railroads once they were built. Government decided how much railroads could charge and many went out of business because they couldn't charge what the market required.
That's why private concerns are reluctant to invest in power production, politicians will effectively nationalise their investments via regulation...