Old and busted: Castro; new hotness: Chavez
-
Sean Michael Murphy wrote:
You were right the first time. Don't hedge.
Heh. :-D
Sean Michael Murphy wrote:
Why was the utility in a bad state to begin with? Mismanagement? A bailout won't remedy that. Charging less than it costs to generate the power? A bailout won't remedy that either. When legislatures artificially depress the price of electricity (like here in Ontario) with subsidies, it just means some other taxpayer has to make up the difference. Some taxpayer who didn't even use that electricity has to pay for the difference between the cost to generate and the price charged. That's the real crime here. This is one of those rare situations when free-market people can stand side by side with the environmentalists. When prices are artificially lowered, it removes the incentive to conserve. Anyway, just my overly simplified view of the world. I look forward to the rebuttals from the "profits bad, government good" crowd...
I started to write something different but then I changed my mind. I was curious as to what happened to electricity retail prices during Enron's collapse and I couldn't find any evidence that they were "abnormal" or excessively volatile during the period of the collapse. I looked and looked and didn't find anything. It seems the collapse actually went unnoticed by the market. I am thus lead to conclude that the only government intervention that was worthwhile in the case of Enron was the Sarbanes Oxley Act and that, in fact, no intervention on the behalf of the US government was needed to maintain controls on electricity prices during the collapse. Of course SarbOx pertains to corporate transparency rather than electricity price regulation, so that act isn't relevant to the current discussion. In fact, it appears the market did quite well in managing the collapse of Enron and thus is a practical example of how it is not really necessary for the government to intervene. It's an interesting observation I hadn't thought about before. Thanks for adding to the discussion - quite valuable input especially regarding how subsidization just shifts the burden elsewhere.
Windows with no internet connection is safe, but that's not what Windows was built for.
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
especially regarding how subsidization just shifts the burden elsewhere.
Yeah, but they can afford it 'cause they are rich.
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] I agree with you that my argument is useless. [Red Stateler] Hey, I am part of a special bread, we are called smart people [Captain See Sharp] The zen of the soapbox is hard to attain...[Jörgen Sigvardsson] I wish I could remember what it was like to only have a short term memory.[David Kentley]
-
K(arl) wrote:
tsarist state
I was talking about current state of affairs.
K(arl) wrote:
soviet state never cared about their citizens.
That is a socialist country (where everything is nationalized) for you.
-
K(arl) wrote:
Also, a State is not driven by profit so it won't sacrifice maintenance and safety measures to spare money:
You've obviously not heard about Walkerton, Ontario. Google for E-Coli and Walkerton to find out how safe practices are ignored when funding cuts occur.
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] I agree with you that my argument is useless. [Red Stateler] Hey, I am part of a special bread, we are called smart people [Captain See Sharp] The zen of the soapbox is hard to attain...[Jörgen Sigvardsson] I wish I could remember what it was like to only have a short term memory.[David Kentley]
Chris Meech wrote:
You've obviously not heard about Walkerton, Ontario
No I didn't before that post. What a tragedy. Yes, you're right I should have said 'a state should not be driven by profit'. We had also cases there where money prevailed on public health[^]. Bastards.
Where do you expect us to go when the bombs fall?
-
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
Not really and this is for multiple good reasons, with one reason in particular. Price determination.
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
Okay, I will admit that nationalization is good in very few cases - as in a government bailout of a severely distressed and important firm
You were right the first time. Don't hedge. Why was the utility in a bad state to begin with? Mismanagement? A bailout won't remedy that. Charging less than it costs to generate the power? A bailout won't remedy that either. When legislatures artificially depress the price of electricity (like here in Ontario) with subsidies, it just means some other taxpayer has to make up the difference. Some taxpayer who didn't even use that electricity has to pay for the difference between the cost to generate and the price charged. That's the real crime here. This is one of those rare situations when free-market people can stand side by side with the environmentalists. When prices are artificially lowered, it removes the incentive to conserve. Anyway, just my overly simplified view of the world. I look forward to the rebuttals from the "profits bad, government good" crowd... Share and enjoy. Sean
Sean Michael Murphy wrote:
When legislatures artificially depress the price of electricity (like here in Ontario) with subsidies, it just means some other taxpayer has to make up the difference
I'm sure you would prefer that Every man for himself, and the Devil take the hindmost, but what makes a human society is the solidarity between its members.
Sean Michael Murphy wrote:
free-market people can stand side by side with the environmentalists
Oh yeah, private companies are so interested in nature conservation...they would never pollute or destroy resources just to earn more.
Where do you expect us to go when the bombs fall?
-
K(arl) wrote:
The author of the article has really a problem with Chavez
Yep, and so does anyone who's enjoyed all the wonderful benefits of communist oppression.
K(arl) wrote:
Why? Even the opposition concealed its defeat.
From the article: Chavez has begun fashioning a single Socialist party out of the many that support him, sparking fears among his critics that a one-party state is on the horizon. The government also promises to do away with the autonomy of the Central Bank and to regulate earnings for private companies. What's more, the president has once again shuffled his cabinet, giving the pink slip to his vice president and interior minister. With nine interior ministers in the last eight years and three housing ministers in as many years, critics say this strategy is aimed at preventing ministers from upstaging the president and also robs them of enough time to attack festering domestic problems like rampant crime and housing shortages. He's becoming democratically elected dictator. How much do you want to bet that he'll win the next election, and the one after that, and the one after that? No one will dare to oppose him, especially after years of securing even more control and brainwashing even more people (especially children). If you recall, Saddam won his last election with 99% of the vote. Chavez is headed in the same direction... but hey, it's democracy so it must be OK, right? X|
K(arl) wrote:
Anyway, what's the problem? Nationalisation of electricity companies is a good thing.
So because he does one good thing, the rest is also good? Is nationalization of the media a good thing? Is it OK for Chavez to brutally silence anyone who opposes him?
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. - Friedrich Nietzsche
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Saddam won his last election with 99% of the vote
But neither the Iraqi opposition nor the Organization of American States and the UE pretended these elections were democratic.
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
From the article
I believe the author is highly partisan and much favors critical opposition. just a belief, I don't know Venezuela enough to have a firm opinion.
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
because he does one good thing, the rest is also good?
No, especially the non-renewal of the broadcasting authorization of one TV channel, if it was not renewed because this channel opposed Chavez. But nationalization of some major companies of public interest as telecommunications and electricity by itself doesn't mean Venezuela is becoming the next North Korea.
Where do you expect us to go when the bombs fall?
-
We differ on the meaning of the word 'socialist'.IMHO, the Soviet Union was never a socialist country, being a dictatorship.
Where do you expect us to go when the bombs fall?
We certainly do :). This is the definition of socialism I accept: 1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. 2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved. Source[^]
-
We certainly do :). This is the definition of socialism I accept: 1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. 2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved. Source[^]
The second one is a marxist definition, which was one of the radical minorities. When I think to Socialism, I think to Jean Jaurès[^], who said "conferring upon the government the effective direction of the nations work would be to give a few men a power compared to which that of Asiatic despots is nothing". There is no socialist who is not a democrat (no us-oriented pun intended)
Where do you expect us to go when the bombs fall?
-
The second one is a marxist definition, which was one of the radical minorities. When I think to Socialism, I think to Jean Jaurès[^], who said "conferring upon the government the effective direction of the nations work would be to give a few men a power compared to which that of Asiatic despots is nothing". There is no socialist who is not a democrat (no us-oriented pun intended)
Where do you expect us to go when the bombs fall?
K(arl) wrote:
hen I think to Socialism, I think to Jean Jaurès[^],
I don't understand the depth of the link to socialism here. Besides his actions, did Jaurès write about socialist ideology or was he just politically aligned with the socialists? It's not clear from the Wikipedia article.
Windows with no internet connection is safe, but that's not what Windows was built for.
-
The second one is a marxist definition, which was one of the radical minorities. When I think to Socialism, I think to Jean Jaurès[^], who said "conferring upon the government the effective direction of the nations work would be to give a few men a power compared to which that of Asiatic despots is nothing". There is no socialist who is not a democrat (no us-oriented pun intended)
Where do you expect us to go when the bombs fall?
Sorry, Karl, but I think my definition is better ;P
-
K(arl) wrote:
hen I think to Socialism, I think to Jean Jaurès[^],
I don't understand the depth of the link to socialism here. Besides his actions, did Jaurès write about socialist ideology or was he just politically aligned with the socialists? It's not clear from the Wikipedia article.
Windows with no internet connection is safe, but that's not what Windows was built for.
Yes, Jaurès wrote many books to explain his ideas (among them were 'Socialist History of the French Revolution', 'The New Army', 'For a secular school'...) many articles in newspapers and even created a new one, "L'Humanité" (which becomes the communist newspaper after the scission of 1924 between socialists and communists).
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread