Old and busted: Castro; new hotness: Chavez
-
K(arl) wrote:
Anyway, what's the problem? Nationalisation of electricity companies is a good thing.
Not really and this is for multiple good reasons, with one reason in particular. Price determination. Coase[^] treated this problem extensively and found that price determination is a real problem for nationalized utilities. Traditionally the market sets the fair price, but for a nationalized electricity company, who says what the fair price is? Government? What do they know about electricity pricing? He also found that nationalization leads to the institution carrying deliberate deficits (which is not a good thing). Consequently, consumers suffer on several fronts. 1. Prices are increased to finance the deficits of the institution. 2. Price discovery is not transparent and thus high prices are seldom justified. 3. There is no reason for ensuring efficiency which can lead to wastage and electricity shortages In short, public ownership is an irresponsible policy. Besides, when the government takes over the private institution, how are the private owners properly compensated? Who determines the fair market value of their electricity company? Under Chavez this will basically be an expropriation (he is socialist afterall) because socialist states believe that no compensation should be due, as it is property of the state anyways. No, nationalization is never good and is always an indication of government interference in the free market system and an attempt to seize control from private individuals. In short, it is a communist policy and since communism is a failed ideology, nationalization is too. -- modified at 6:47 Tuesday 9th January, 2007 Okay, I will admit that nationalization is good in very few cases - as in a government bailout of a severely distressed and important firm - i.e. firms responsible for public utilities and infrastructure, like electrical companies. But after the bail-out the firm should be reprivatized. In can also be good if there is too much interference by external companies who appropriate natural resources, but as far as I know neither of these situations is the case in Venezuela. Anyways, if you like debating about this kind of stuff I will be living in Dijon around July/August and travelling almost daily to Paris! Lucky Franc
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
-
K(arl) wrote:
It is the best way to ensure for any citizen an access to electric power at the same price whatever his/her location, in a big city or in some far countryside.
Wrong, Karl. Look at Russia, still a lot of places without a regular electricity access.
K(arl) wrote:
it won't sacrifice maintenance and safety measures to spare money: something most important with power plants, nuclear or not.
Wrong again. Remember Chernobyl?
Without mentioning the fact that Russia s the biggest country of the World with extreme climatic and geographic condition, the main point is that the tsarist state then the soviet state never cared about their citizens.
Igor Vigdorchik wrote:
Chernobyl
Same comment.
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
-
Without mentioning the fact that Russia s the biggest country of the World with extreme climatic and geographic condition, the main point is that the tsarist state then the soviet state never cared about their citizens.
Igor Vigdorchik wrote:
Chernobyl
Same comment.
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
K(arl) wrote:
Without mentioning the fact that Russia s the biggest country of the World with extreme climatic and geographic condition, the main point is that the tsarist state then the soviet state never cared about their citizens.
So....ummmmm...Socialism "cares"? :~
-
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:
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.
-
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:
I am thus lead to conclude that the only government intervention that was worthwhile in the case of Enron was the Sarbanes Oxley Act
I thought that you had previously said you opposed Sarbox because you are a free market anarchist.
-
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
I am thus lead to conclude that the only government intervention that was worthwhile in the case of Enron was the Sarbanes Oxley Act
I thought that you had previously said you opposed Sarbox because you are a free market anarchist.
Red Stateler wrote:
I thought that you had previously said you opposed Sarbox because you are a free market anarchist.
Hmmm, don't recall that... Sarbox ensures transparency and honesty and makes the free market a much better place for all! If anything it improves market efficiency. It has the added benefit of weeding the chaff from the grain because it is costly for small firms to implement so they prefer to delist and go private. This helps reduce the dreaded "penny stock" phenomenon that I so dislike. All they do is add to volatility, reduce liquidity and increase fraud. While free-market anarchy revels in the fact that the capital markets should provide all possible services, we don't consider fraud a service.
Windows with no internet connection is safe, but that's not what Windows was built for.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
I thought that you had previously said you opposed Sarbox because you are a free market anarchist.
Hmmm, don't recall that... Sarbox ensures transparency and honesty and makes the free market a much better place for all! If anything it improves market efficiency. It has the added benefit of weeding the chaff from the grain because it is costly for small firms to implement so they prefer to delist and go private. This helps reduce the dreaded "penny stock" phenomenon that I so dislike. All they do is add to volatility, reduce liquidity and increase fraud. While free-market anarchy revels in the fact that the capital markets should provide all possible services, we don't consider fraud a service.
Windows with no internet connection is safe, but that's not what Windows was built for.
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
Hmmm, don't recall that...
To refresh your memory[^]. We had some discussion where I defended a degree of government regulation for the sake of financial transparency since it's necessary for a free market system to work. You had taken the position that government regulation of basically all sorts impedes financial progress...Basically that financial systems can take care of themselves without legal disclosure requirements.
-
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.
Likely because Enron actually did not generate any electricity, it was just a broker.
Last modified: 35mins after originally posted --
-
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
Hmmm, don't recall that...
To refresh your memory[^]. We had some discussion where I defended a degree of government regulation for the sake of financial transparency since it's necessary for a free market system to work. You had taken the position that government regulation of basically all sorts impedes financial progress...Basically that financial systems can take care of themselves without legal disclosure requirements.
Egads! It appears I have been infected with the dogma of leftists! :doh: Yes, re-reading my old message I recall the discussion now. I have no defense other than to state that I have clearly contradicted myself. I attibute this to brain-wasting as a result of programming in Visual Basic. Asked to choose between the two positions, I would lead to reclaim my earlier position and say that markets operate better with minimal government intervention. However, in the context of the control of transparency to eliminate fraud I will have to think more about this. "Fraud" can't very well be a "good" that is offered on a market, so how this fits in with free-market anarchy and SarBox I am not exactly sure at the moment, but it is something for me to think about, indeed.
Windows with no internet connection is safe, but that's not what Windows was built for.
-
Likely because Enron actually did not generate any electricity, it was just a broker.
Last modified: 35mins after originally posted --
Rob Graham wrote:
Likey because Enron actually did not generate any electricity, it was just a broker.
Yes, but a major one.
Windows with no internet connection is safe, but that's not what Windows was built for.
-
Egads! It appears I have been infected with the dogma of leftists! :doh: Yes, re-reading my old message I recall the discussion now. I have no defense other than to state that I have clearly contradicted myself. I attibute this to brain-wasting as a result of programming in Visual Basic. Asked to choose between the two positions, I would lead to reclaim my earlier position and say that markets operate better with minimal government intervention. However, in the context of the control of transparency to eliminate fraud I will have to think more about this. "Fraud" can't very well be a "good" that is offered on a market, so how this fits in with free-market anarchy and SarBox I am not exactly sure at the moment, but it is something for me to think about, indeed.
Windows with no internet connection is safe, but that's not what Windows was built for.
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
It appears I have been infected with the dogma of leftists!
It is very insidious.
-
Without mentioning the fact that Russia s the biggest country of the World with extreme climatic and geographic condition, the main point is that the tsarist state then the soviet state never cared about their citizens.
Igor Vigdorchik wrote:
Chernobyl
Same comment.
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
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:
'Fair' price?
Yes, a "fair price" because it is the market that determines the price and the participants in the market are those that buy electricity for themselves. What participant would want artificially high prices? Even if some large company were to bid prices up for whatever reason, the market would easily correct the mispricing. This is why electricity prices are mean-reverting.
K(arl) wrote:
Pure BS. It is the best way to ensure for any citizen an access to electric power at the same price whatever his/her location, in a big city or in some far countryside. Also, a State is not driven by profit so it won't sacrifice maintenance and safety measures to spare money: something most important with power plants, nuclear or not.
Yes, okay. I clarified my position in another post to MP(2). I agree, there are times when nationalization is good. (See other posts).
K(arl) wrote:
Legitimate question. Compensation has to be fair and be evaulated by independent instances.
Yes, this is a key point. Depending on how Chavez handles this, it will say alot about his government policy.
K(arl) wrote:
Very false. For instance, in France, most of our electricity is made by nuclear power plants to avoid to be energitically dependent. Never private companies would have made that choice, nor have the means to implement such a strategy.
Yes, I will agree - again, see my other posts.
K(arl) wrote:
That's a clear demonstration of the irresponsability and hypocrisy of the private sector: no goverrment intervention, unless we need money brought by taxes to compensate the mistakes we make. Citizen and consumers are f***ed in both cases.
I concede that you have a point - I addressed this in terms of Enron and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that resulted from the Enron fallout. The effect was to tighten corporate reporting regulations.
K(arl) wrote:
And you are not affraid to travel to a communist country?
No. I love France! I like the architecture, food, wine and people. I'll be there working with INSEE[
How much do you pay for a KW? Here I pay around 0.11€ during the day and 0.065€ during the night, with an annual subscription around 100€. Oh, BTW, since eletricity purchase was deregulated in France last year for companies to respect an UE directive, the price raised for the ones who chose to have another provider than the State's company, of around 50%... a 'fair' prce I presume.
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
I'll be there working with INSEE[^]/CREST[^]
:OMG: You'll work for a public organization, funded by State's funds, in total contradiction with the Holy Laws of the Sacred MarketTM!
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
-
How much do you pay for a KW? Here I pay around 0.11€ during the day and 0.065€ during the night, with an annual subscription around 100€. Oh, BTW, since eletricity purchase was deregulated in France last year for companies to respect an UE directive, the price raised for the ones who chose to have another provider than the State's company, of around 50%... a 'fair' prce I presume.
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
I'll be there working with INSEE[^]/CREST[^]
:OMG: You'll work for a public organization, funded by State's funds, in total contradiction with the Holy Laws of the Sacred MarketTM!
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
K(arl) wrote:
Here I pay around 0.11€ during the day and 0.065€ during the night, with an annual subscription around 100€.
:wtf: We only pay about 4 cents (compared to your 14) here in Georgia (plus a minimum monthly bill of $7.50...not an additional surcharge). Socialism is ripping you off.
-
How much do you pay for a KW? Here I pay around 0.11€ during the day and 0.065€ during the night, with an annual subscription around 100€. Oh, BTW, since eletricity purchase was deregulated in France last year for companies to respect an UE directive, the price raised for the ones who chose to have another provider than the State's company, of around 50%... a 'fair' prce I presume.
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
I'll be there working with INSEE[^]/CREST[^]
:OMG: You'll work for a public organization, funded by State's funds, in total contradiction with the Holy Laws of the Sacred MarketTM!
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
In Switzerland I pay about 0.13 U.S. dollars per kW-hr. In France I believe the price is about 0.12 U.S. dollars per kW-hr. The problem with low-priced government regulated electricity markets is that somewhere, somehow it is being subsidized - most likely through tax dollars. So, although the "official" quoted price is 0.11 Euros or 0.12 USD per kW-hr, you are paying more in taxes to support the subsidy. Thus the price for suppliers other than the state is still "fair" because they are not being subsidized. The real question is how much tax do you pay in France as a percentage of your income versus how much I pay in Switzerland or other countries? After all the accounting, I'm probably paying less. For comparison, Canada has de-regulated electricity markets with alternatives to government suppliers and prices are about 0.06 USD per kW-hr. United States rates are about 0.08 USD per kW-hr. You're actually not getting that good of a deal. EDIT: I found some statistics here[^].
K(arl) wrote:
:OMG: You'll work for a public organization, funded by State's funds, in total contradiction with the Holy Laws of the Sacred MarketTM!
Indeed! And your tax dollars will be paying my salary! I'll be sure to mention how you feel that the electricity you are getting is a very good deal price-wise. ;P Remember, I'm coming to "help"... :-D -- modified at 13:26 Tuesday 9th January, 2007
Windows with no internet connection is safe, but that's not what Windows was built for.
-
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
Traditionally the market sets the fair price
'Fair' price? :laugh::laugh::laugh:.
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
What do they know about electricity pricing?
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
public ownership is an irresponsible policy.
Pure BS. It is the best way to ensure for any citizen an access to electric power at the same price whatever his/her location, in a big city or in some far countryside. Also, a State is not driven by profit so it won't sacrifice maintenance and safety measures to spare money: something most important with power plants, nuclear or not.
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
when the government takes over the private institution, how are the private owners properly compensated
Legitimate question. Compensation has to be fair and be evaulated by independent instances.
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
Under Chavez this will basically be an expropriation (he is socialist afterall) because socialist states believe that no compensation should be due, as it is property of the state anyways.
Wait and see.
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
, nationalization is never good
Very false. For instance, in France, most of our electricity is made by nuclear power plants to avoid to be energitically dependent. Never private companies would have made that choice, nor have the means to implement such a strategy.
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
as in a government bailout of a severely distressed and important firm - i.e. firms responsible for public utilities and infrastructure, like electrical companies.
That's a clear demonstration of the irresponsability and hypocrisy of the private sector: no goverrment intervention, unless we need money brought by taxes to compensate the mistakes we make. Citizen and consumers are fucked in both cases.
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
f you like debating about this kind of stuff I will be living in Dijon around July/August and travelling almost daily to Paris!
And you are not affraid to travel to a communist country? ;-P -
The Apocalyptic Teacup
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]
-
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?