 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Gas Prices II
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: Jim the Bart Date: 01 Jun 01 - 10:09 AM Let me try the link again: |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: GUEST,UB Dan Date: 01 Jun 01 - 10:33 AM Bartholomew, I'm missing something in what you are saying. You say the high prices are due to limited choice and that a big problem is the government subsidies of the oil/cool industry. This is the result of a regulation of the industry. More choice and less government support would be deregulation, and this is what is being started now... At the same time, you also seem to be saying that the open-market capitalist system cannot succeed...does this mean that there should be less-choice and energy should be a government run industry. Or are you worried about monopolies...(the Rockefeller's where one of the reasons anti-trust laws were established). I'm just not sure if your saying regulation or deregulation is preferable, or if your just saying the conbsumer will lose no matter what.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: UB Ed Date: 01 Jun 01 - 01:01 PM Sounds like Bart favors tight government regulation of infrastructure industries. I disagree that our energy choices are limited by big producers. (Please understand I generally wish to believe I have some level of control over my choices). As an individual, I can avail myself of any energy option I wish, as long as I'm willing to pay the price. If people wished to pay for solar technologies, big energy industries would provide it. The point is, we don't want to pay. So, our energy choices are ultimately our own. Hiding the price to produce from the customer in a subsidy is just wrong, regardless of regulation or free market. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: kendall Date: 01 Jun 01 - 01:30 PM Ok, Doug, I'll settle for Jenna. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: UB Ed Date: 01 Jun 01 - 01:45 PM Kendall, are you smoking again while playing that Taylor? Although quite youthful, I doubt she has sufficient energy to solve our problems. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: DougR Date: 01 Jun 01 - 01:48 PM Dirty old man! :>) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: Charley Noble Date: 01 Jun 01 - 02:05 PM Doug R – why back up there you were alleging there were no disadvantages to N-power other than safely disposing of the radioactive wastes. Well, that's still a biggy! There's not only the waste that comes from the plant operation and decommissioning, but also the low-level wastes created from mining and processing the uranium ore. Most Bush energy advocates conveniently ignore the front-end and back-end of the process. Most of us that grew up on a farm suspect that to do so is a mistake. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: CarolC Date: 01 Jun 01 - 02:28 PM UB Ed, and UB Dan (does the UB part of your names stand for the same thing?)... I'm not sure I understand what you are saying in your most recent posts. I saw on one of my local PBS stations (WETA) that there will be a program on the subject of the California energy situation on Frontline (I'm pretty sure they said Frontline) called 'Blackout'. On WETA, it is scheduled to air this coming Tuesday at 10:00 PM, EST. I'm hoping to tape this show (if I remember to set the timer on my VCR... I will be out of town on Tuesday. My son's GRADUATING FROM HIGH SCHOOL on Monday! HOORAHHH!!!!!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: GUEST,UB Dan Date: 01 Jun 01 - 03:31 PM Carol, Yes the UB stands for the same thing :) Congratulations on your son's graduation. My latest post was to try to get a better idea of what Bartholomew was saying. You have given me some excellent points to think about in our recent conversations and I'd like to get a better idea of what Kendall and Bartholomew are proposing. Sometimes posts seem to be intended to share the writers frustration, but these don't really help me get a fuller picture of the situation or of what sort of solutions are available. This is something that I think you have been very good in giving me. Bartholomew mentions that government regulation and subsidy of the power industry is bad and that open market capitalism will not work. I'm interested in finding out which direction he would like to see it head. I might be able to learn something. But some of the messages read like brochure text...catch phrases, lots of feeling, but not much information. I'm not implying that people can't share their feelings...I know these conversations are not controllable, but I'd like to get an idea of why people feel the way they do. A brief example, (no offense intended) Kendall says that he does not dislike Bush personally, but he can't accept his politics...simple enough, right...not really, I don't know what political belief it is that he disagrees with in relation to the current topic(s) [gas]. take away labels like conservative, liberal, republican, democrate and tell me what bill or vote it is that you disagree with and why...what other alternative is available. You (Carol) have explained your position very well, I understand it completely and I can add it to my own understanding of the situation. That's what I'm trying to get. I think Bartholomew has something interesting to add...but I'm just not sure I'm getting it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: CarolC Date: 01 Jun 01 - 03:41 PM Fair enough, UB Dan. Thanks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: UB Ed Date: 01 Jun 01 - 03:43 PM Carol, watch the PBS show. Generally they try to provide balanced info. For anything you don't understand, belly on up and ask! Its very likely that I was unclear in my post. Ed |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: CarolC Date: 01 Jun 01 - 03:53 PM For anything you don't understand, belly on up and ask! --UB Ed Thanks. Ok, I don't understand what you mean by these words... "Hiding the price to produce from the customer in a subsidy..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: UB Ed Date: 01 Jun 01 - 04:40 PM Carol, I was responding to Bart's comments about government subsidies for coal and other energy producers. Such subsidies effectively mask the true cost to produce a resource from the ultimate consumer. The consumer winds up paying for it, but through another forum (taxes). As a overly simplified example, suppose I pay 5 cents for coal-fired electricity to the utility and 2 cents of my annual federal taxes goes to utilities as a subsidy. The actual cost to me is 7 cents, but I really only know about the 5 cents. Pretend that I may be happy with the current situation (paying 5 cents) but would wish to do something diffrently for 7 cents. In this situation (1) I don't evenknow where my money is going and (2) my perception of the cost of coal-fired electricity is that it is low enough that it is not worth my while to seek an alternative source. Thus my behavior is not influenced to change. That's my problem with subsidies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: Charley Noble Date: 01 Jun 01 - 04:54 PM It's also the same with the "hidden costs" of N-power. There are some interesting geo-thermal projects going on here in Maine, where we are tapping ground water to use as energy for space heating. The ground water is about 50 degrees F and apparently there's enough difference from our winter outdoor temperature for an efficient heat exchanger to make economic sense. In the summer, it works just as well for cooling the house. Sure would be sad if such a decentralized system could be implemented all over the country.;-} |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: UB Ed Date: 01 Jun 01 - 05:08 PM See Charley, those are the neat things to do. I guess that you're talking about a ground source heat pump. Its more efficient than a traditional air source, but more expensive. So you gotta cost it out at life cycle costs to justify. Keep in mind, however, this decentralized system still runs on electricity delivered from the utility. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: CarolC Date: 01 Jun 01 - 05:29 PM It looks to me like both UB Ed, and UB Dan are saying that government deregulation of the big energy industries is a good thing because subsidies are bad (because of the hidden costs). I agree about subsidies being hidden costs. The problem I have with the idea that there should be no government involvement, is that the government has been heavily subsidizing the big energy industries for a long time. As a result, they are now very big and powerful competitors in the marketplace. If people aren't using solar, it's not because they necessarily don't want to. It's because the marketplace favors the use of the bigger, more entrenched energy industries. Thanks, in part, to the help of government subsidies to those industries. Except for the nuclear industry which has never been competitive in the marketplace. It has relied heavily on government assistance to get developed, and then once implemented, the use of it tends to raise the cost of energy for consumers. So it has the hidden cost of 'subsidies', and it ends up being more expensive anyway. The governmet is going to subsidize somebody. I think we can take that for granted. I submit that it would be more in our long-term interest if it would subsidize alternate energy technologies rather than the existing energy industries. Because that's the direction in which we need to move, and because the existing energy industries have recieved enough. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: DougR Date: 01 Jun 01 - 05:39 PM Carol, in the long-term, I agree with your last paragraph. However, the need is now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: CarolC Date: 01 Jun 01 - 05:48 PM Yes, DougR. And for that reason, I'm interested in finding out what the truth is about whether or not there has been any misbehavior on the part of energy producers and (if true) how it has effected the situation in California. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: CarolC Date: 01 Jun 01 - 06:15 PM Ok. I've read the article Bartholomew mentioned in his link. I strongly recommend that people read this article. DougR, I think it addresses many of the issues you have brought up. I would love to post the entire thing right here, but it's too long. So I'll just post an excerpt...
"Through it all, dereg apologists are having a hard time explaining why two California power companies were immune to the crisis: the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District. Both are owned by the public, and both maintain heavy commitments to renewables and efficiency. In 1989 Sacramento voted to shut its one nuclear reactor, and has since pioneered a major shift to solar, wind and biomass energy, with heavy commitments to conservation.
During the crisis, rates charged by both companies have been stable. The two "munis" actually made money selling power to their embattled private neighbors, underscoring the fact that throughout the United States, public-owned power districts supply electricity cheaper and more reliably than the private utilities. The California crisis has already spurred grassroots movements in San Francisco, Davis and elsewhere to demand municipals of their own. "In the long run," says author Dan Berman, "public ownership is central to any real solution to the problems of the electric-utility grid."...
...Which leaves what the consumer/environmental community that opposed AB 1890 has been arguing for all along--renewables. The most notable new Western power plant is now stringing its way along the Oregon-Washington border. It consists of 450 windmills with sufficient capacity to power 70,000 homes. With construction under way in February, electricity could be surging out by December 31, a far faster construction timetable than for any other source. The fuel supply will be cheap, stable and clean. Environmental opposition will be nil. Thanks to 15,000 windmills built in the 1980s under Governor Jerry Brown (now mayor of Oakland), California once produced 90 percent of the world's wind power. But the big utilities wanted little to do with them. Last year the world-leader's mantle slipped to Germany, which built the equivalent of a large reactor's capacity in wind power. Had California done the same, things might have been different. "The message is clear, " says Coyle. "The power supply needs to be controlled by the public. And efficiency and renewables work. Do we have to go through this again to relearn those lessons?"" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: kendall Date: 01 Jun 01 - 07:52 PM Dirty old man? of course! Hell, I was a dirty YOUNG man. Before that, a dirty boy, I got kicked out of the Boy Scouts for eating a brownie. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: Charley Noble Date: 01 Jun 01 - 08:03 PM KENDALL! Shame! LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: Midchuck Date: 01 Jun 01 - 08:19 PM Cady's First Law: There is nothing that a corporate executive can f*** up so bad that a bureaucrat can't make it worse. Cady's Second Law: There is nothing that a bureaucrat can f*** up so bad that a corporate executive can't make it worse. Note that most conservatives would agree with the first and disagree violently with the second; and most liberals would do the reverse. I hold both to be true, even though that creates a logical feedback with no final resolution. Maybe that's the problem. Peter. P. S.: Solar power is nuclear power. So make up your minds.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: CarolC Date: 01 Jun 01 - 08:43 PM Midchuck, who's Cady? Re: the sun and nuclear power... you have to admit, since we can use the sun right where it is, it doesn't have a NIMBY problem associated with it's use as a source of power. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: DougR Date: 03 Jun 01 - 04:13 PM Kendall, a Brownie! Brownie's are a bit young for Boy Scouts aren't they ...oh, but maybe that's whay they kicked you out! I love Browies myself, but can't eat them anymore. Too fattening. :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: UB Ed Date: 04 Jun 01 - 01:41 PM Carol, I don't think deregulation is the answer. I've simply been discussing some of my opinions as to why it doesn't seem to be working in certain areas. Government subsidies can occur regardless of a regulated or unregulated environment. In general, I believe in the long term, most susidies are not good. That being said, specifically with regard to the electric utility industry, it is important to understand that it works in accordance with the laws of physics. Generation stations and transmission lines are built to compliment each other; as such a program that seeks to unbundle these two aspects of the business must address these complimentary issues. I've yet to see a regulator do this. With this regard, Midchuck Caddy comment is right on. Another aspect of this industry is that there are indeed benefits of economies of scale. A large centrally located power station can produce energy at a $/kwh rate much less than smaller dispersed units. That being said, when electric utilities could still build these types of facilities, there was no way these dispersed sources (like windmills) could economically compete. Hence the utilities' lack of interest. Note also that these regulated electric utilities were not owned by gas, oil or coal producers, so they really didn't have an incentive to discriminate against other technologies. An interesting aspect of this deregulation mess and the success of power plant opponents is to drive electricity prices up to levels where these dispersed resources appear to be more affordable. Ed |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: CarolC Date: 05 Jun 01 - 12:59 AM UB Ed, You have made some interesting assertions in your 04-Jun-01 - 01:41 PM post. Upoon what do you base it, and where do you get your information? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: CarolC Date: 05 Jun 01 - 01:12 AM (Sorry, a bit sleep deprived here.) Upon what do you base them, and where do you get your information? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: Metchosin Date: 05 Jun 01 - 06:06 AM As a citizen of a Province which has Public Utility and has been tarred with the brush of price gouging during the recent California energy crisis, this has been really interesting so far, especially looking at this from a Canadian perspective.
Hydroelectric energy production in this province, is not primarily through private companies and shareholder dividends, but through a publicly funded corporation called BC Hydro (Powerex is its subsidiary which sells energy surplus to domestic requirements to the US).
Citizens of BC get a price break on their hydro rates because we are, in theory, the owners and get a return on investment of our tax dollars that go into the construction of dams, generating plants and infrastructure. But we pay dearly for our public utility, through our higher taxes to fund such projects, compared to taxation in US jurisdictions and in some instances, the cost is also reflected in the destruction of our fisheries habitat. It is therefore difficult to determine the real price individuals pay for hydroelectric energy in B.C, but it is certainly far more than the kilowatt per hour rate reflected in our hydro bill.
One in California, or elsewhere, may look at our fairly low domestic hydro rates compared to their own and feel we are getting an incredible deal and they are being gouged, but they are unaware of the real cost of Hydro to taxpayers in this Province.
BC sent power to California despite the fact that there were serious questions in the minds of some here, that BC Hydro would ever be fully paid for the electricity it sold to companies that were already publicly in serious financial difficulties. Not normally a wise business move. Like mortgage rates, prices become high, the higher the risk as well. Also, the need came at a time when the capacity of our generating plants was low and our own domestic needs were high. (It's really cold in most of this Province in the winter).
I do hope the same thing doesn't occur next winter as well, because BC snowpacks this year are at record lows, drawing down water for hydroelectric production seriously affects salmon survival in BC rivers and if we have a cold winter again, our domestic needs are going to be high again too. All this impacts upon the free market price of hydro at the time and things could be very expensive for California again. And if we have been repudiated for selling the power last winter at a high price (along with several other US power corporations) imagine what bastards we will be considered, if we can't supply our own needs and that of the American market too.
And yes, it would be helpful for this Province to make a healthy profit on its surplus again for a change, although I am still confused how that profit has been determined. A figure of 179 million has been bandied about, but I am not certain if this profit was calculated before or after the unpaid figure of 300 million dollars that the bankrupt California companies were unable to pay for power that was sent and used. So the high profit may be so far, on paper only. I would be really interested in any further information regarding geothermal electrical power generation. This Province and the whole of the west coast of North America should, theoretically, have huge potential in that area. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: kendall Date: 05 Jun 01 - 06:15 AM Last night there was a short blurb on those hybrid cars, and, on US made vehicles that run on hydrogen fuel cells. Thats the wave of the future. I intend to have one as soon as possible. Screw EXXON! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: GUEST,UB Dan Date: 05 Jun 01 - 08:51 AM Thanks kendall...that clears it all up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: DougR Date: 05 Jun 01 - 03:47 PM And my grandson just went to work for Exxon! I'll have to tell him his career move is doomed to failure, I guess. Where can I buy me one of those hydrogen powered vehicles, Kendall? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: kendall Date: 05 Jun 01 - 04:19 PM You cant yet. They are to be released in about 2 to 3 years. The electric/gas hybrids are available now, but, there is a waiting list. How can anyone who cares about the environment do anything to make EXXON successful? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: Jim the Bart Date: 05 Jun 01 - 04:50 PM At this point in our history, "de-regulation" will not result in free and competitive markets. Energy suppliers exert the same monopolistic control over markets and consumers now that the trusts did back in old T. Roosevelt's time. We need to decide whether electricity at "a just and reasonable price" is a right of the American citizen, as FDR's administration claimed. If it is, we need to treat the providing of electrical power like we do the providing of highways, the providing of national security, the providing of an education and the providing of mail service. When public services are placed opened to market forces choices are diminished, not increased; there would be no rural mail service if it had to be done at a profit. Doesn't anyone see that the more we give ourselves over solely to the profit motive the worse the quality of our life gets? We complain about a degradation in "Values" in our society. Well, how can any other value be heard when everyone is shouting "How much CASH is it worth?"? And that's exactly what you do when place every necessity of life on the market. As I see it, a person's position on this (and so many other societal "crises") is going to depend on how completely he/she believes in Capitalist dogma. To support the Bush administration's policies you need to truly believe in a few basic premises at least: 1. Free markets exist. 2. Free markets guarantee greatest choice. 3. Free markets guarantee the best price. I might accept #2 & #3. Unfortunately, without #1 the others don't matter. You have to also believe that the accumulation of wealth should be unrestricted and that "unleashing the power of capital" is the path toward a healthy society. You have to forget all the lessons that we learned so well in 1929. I don't accept capitalism without socialism anymore. The only thing Free Market Capitalism has been good at is the production of STUFF. All it's good for is exploiting people and things with an eye on personal gain. Capitalism hasn't made us a better society. It hasn't made us happy. It has only made us "richer" in material comforts. It has created generations of asthmatics to come. It has created the bottled water industry. It has nearly buried us in our own garbage. It has turned citizens into criminals(If you don't think it's in the best interest of the liquor, plastics, tobacco and other industries to keep hemp illegal, think a little harder) and criminals into millionaires (what better example of free market capitalism is there than the cocaine trade?). And it is rapidly becoming the only game in town. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: GUEST,Brit Date: 05 Jun 01 - 04:59 PM This is a bloody parochial thread! Complaining that groundnut oil (or whatever) is $2.99 a gallon - I would be glad to fill my diesel powered car at that rate. Just because California doesn't know its arse from its elbow at the moment does not change the fact that in 20 years time you will be paying $29.9 a gallon for your fuel, if you're really lucky. All this faffing about hydrogen as a fuel ignores the fact that it takes about twice the amount of enengy to make the hydrogen than you can ever get out out of it! Wind power - it takes an entire turbine farm to get enough energy to run a 40% of a single Sainsbury (a spermarket chain) depot in the South of England. Solar Energy - as mentioned in other messages, it still has barely reached its break-even point in terms of the construction of the solar conversion units. Hydro-power - already probably reached its effective limits - its been developed the longest. Tidal power - probably has still some mileage, but is limited both in application (there aren't many suitable sites which will stay in one piece) and in time (they tend to silt up). Hydrogen fusion has been on the brink of a break through since as long as I can remember - in the 1950's. Thre does not seem to be anything on the horizon - but we do know that fission does work and it seems to be the only thing that will keep us warm in winter.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: DougR Date: 05 Jun 01 - 06:08 PM I don't know, Kendall, they're paying him a lot of money. Maybe that has something to do with it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: CarolC Date: 05 Jun 01 - 08:01 PM Guest,Brit, I would be interested in knowing where you get your information about alternative energy sources as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: kendall Date: 05 Jun 01 - 08:39 PM The bastards couldn't afford me Doug. There are things that money cant buy. Brit, back when the automobile hit the scene, they said, "It will never be practical, wont go more than 5 miles an hour." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: UB Ed Date: 06 Jun 01 - 08:44 AM Hi Carol. I'm an electrical engineer who has worked in the electric utility industry over 20 years. My personal experience includes evaluating power supply alternatives, planning for tranmission lines, environmental licensing for new facilities, wholesale energy trading and most recently, competitive retail energy sales. My comments regarding the linkage of generation and transmission are based on electrical theory and personal experience. My comments on economies of scale are from personal experience. Bart, I like your comments about the free market and prerequisites. I wonder, however, if you'd be comfortable with changing the word "socialism" to "regulation". Carol, Brit seems to make some economy of scale arguements as well. Brit, you got any readily available info on this? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: kendall Date: 06 Jun 01 - 08:51 AM And, while you are at it, change the word "de-regulation" to "Price gouging, or exploitation" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: GUEST,UB Dan Date: 06 Jun 01 - 09:27 AM Kendall, I understand your desire to have free cars that run on water...but until that time, you need to think logically about how that can come about. How can you be upset at EXXON as the destroyer of worlds and be upset that prices may rise. If prices rise, this will encourage the development of alternate energy. Also, who at EXXON are you upset at...is it just EXXON...is it all gasoline retailers...is it oil producers...is it oil transporters...is it that they charge money for their product...EXXON is an easy mark if your quoting cereal box philosophy because they had a very high-profile oil spill. But don't you think that they should also be rewarded for their efforts to clean it up. I'm not saying that they did it out of the goodness of their heart...but they did devote alot of time and money to clean it up. Should our message be that it doesn't matter whether they tried to clean it up or not. Or is that not the issue? If it is not the issue, then what is? Kendall, help me...I don't understand the message you are trying to convey. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: GUEST,UB Dan Date: 06 Jun 01 - 10:38 AM Bartholomew, I'm still a little confused on your main position, but I think it is that the utility companies should be government owned and government run...is this right? It also looks like you take this position because you believe capitalism is oppressive and exploitative, because of greed and because true free markets don't exist. Those who have an advantage will drive out all competition, obtain a monopoly and then provide inferior services at exorbitant prices. Did I understand you correctly or am I missing it? Below, I have also responded directly to some comments, but I want to make sure that I'm not just misunderstanding you or not getting the full picture.
"We need to decide whether electricity at "a just and reasonable price" is a right of the American citizen, as FDR's administration claimed. If it is, we need to treat the providing of electrical power like we do the providing of highways, the providing of national security, the providing of an education and the providing of mail service.
"I don't accept capitalism without socialism anymore. The only thing Free Market Capitalism has been good at is the production of STUFF. All it's good for is exploiting people and things with an eye on personal gain."
"Capitalism hasn't made us a better society. It hasn't made us happy. It has only made us "richer" in material comforts. It has created generations of asthmatics to come. It has created the bottled water industry. It has nearly buried us in our own garbage. It has turned citizens into criminals(If you don't think it's in the best interest of the liquor, plastics, tobacco and other industries to keep hemp illegal, think a little harder) and criminals into millionaires (what better example of free market capitalism is there than the cocaine trade?). And it is rapidly becoming the only game in town." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: Jim the Bart Date: 06 Jun 01 - 12:05 PM This is a long post. That's because I'm tired of trying to express myself in sound bites. UB Dan – You've got the gist of my raving, but it's hard to convey a full picture in a few reader's digest styled posts. I believe that we have enough resources on this planet to provide for the basic needs of all the people – even those who live in the stinking deserts – as long as people can control their greed. I also believe that NO ONE, in any part of this world, has more of a right to their equal share in things that anyone else; and, conversely, that NO ONE is excused from contributing what they can (in physical labor, intellect, talent, skill or whatever) to the common wealth. In short, I believe in that an idealized state is possible and that we are kept from achieving the ideal because of our bad habits, shabby thinking, outmoded ideas, raw fear and a bunch of other unavoidable human traits. The problem is to figure out a way to get from where we are to the idealized state that we would all like to be in – the state where we are all fulfilled, developed, loved & loving, challenged, rewarded and able to live WITHOUT FEAR. I don't know of any system ever developed that has done a better job of putting us on the road to the good life than the one we have devised in the US. Maybe it's parochialism on my part., but that's how I feel. I also think that within our system there are serious defects that not only keep us from getting to Heaven on earth, but also threaten to bring the whole damn thing down. So what do I think is wrong and how do I think we should fix it? That is the tough question, isn't it? At the most basic level, I think you must implement policy that encourages our best tendencies as human beings and minimizes our worst. This means that the part of capitalism that encourages hard work and new ideas is good, while the part that encourages greed, envy and the other deadly sins is bad. To address your comments on my comments: Yes. IMO food, shelter, clothing, education at a basic level should be provided for everyone. Certain services should also be provided at a nominal charge – electricity, clean water, highway systems, libraries (with computers), mail delivery. By nominal charge, I mean that the services are self-supporting without the need to show profitability. If someone wishes to provide a higher level of service (like FEDEX) at a higher price, that's fine. But the private sector cannot be allowed to eliminate public services. The tendency in this country is toward privatization as a cure to perceived bureaucratic inefficiency. I don't see any reason why public companies can't be run as well as private. I believe it's corruption that's the problem and I believe that accountability is the cure. Regarding socialism and capitalism. Socialism is only possible within a capitalist state; it is a form of capitalism. Communism – common ownership – can only work on a local and limited basis. As I see it, without FDR's experiments in socialism this system smashes on the rocks in the 30's. Look at Hitler's Germany – "National Socialism" was a form of state managed and supported capitalism; it was their answer to a ravaged economy. The New Deal was ours. All of the people who are trying to dismantle the social safety net have forgotten that it was put into place for a reason and that the fundamentals haven't changed. We are riding high on technical advances and developing markets; an extended run of bad luck and we're back to selling apples on the street corners (or PC's for the IBM crowd). Bottled water. What better symbol of how Capitalism works is there? We pollute the one resource that we can't live without, by spilling our personal and business waste into our commonly held water supply. Then entrepeneurs figure out a way to filter out the waste and sell this resource back to us a bottle at a time. Our insane drug policies are a personal sticking point. My point in bringing it up at all is that as long as criminalization of various substances helps businesses, the profit motive will keep us from finding realistic approaches to dealing with these issues. One last point – There are too many people in this world who are simply not willing to generate money for those who don't have it. The ultimate example of how capitalism works is the game Monopoly. If you play it right, one person ends up with everything and everyone else is out of the game. Whether you believe the world is going to hell in a hand basket or not, this system is. And emphasizing the worst aspects of it won't fix it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: DougR Date: 06 Jun 01 - 01:41 PM Good luck, Guest UB, should you elect to reply to Bart's comemnts. It will come as no surprise to anyone on this forum that I agree wholeheartedly with you. I think you make your points very understandable and, based on your comments to Carol, it would appear to me that you have credibility. On this forum, the majority of the posters view "big business" as the enemy. Never mind that without them our country would have a bit of an unemployment problem. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: mousethief Date: 06 Jun 01 - 02:05 PM There's that black-or-white thinking again, Doug, just from the other side. You seem to imply that people either love Big Business and thus we leave them alone to do their thing, or people hate them and want them totally shut down. Truth is, Big Business, unchecked, tends to monopoly. I'm for big business, but only with big regulation to keep it in line. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: DougR Date: 06 Jun 01 - 02:18 PM Well, Alex, I suppose that is one of the differences we have. :>) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: CarolC Date: 06 Jun 01 - 02:36 PM UB Ed,
One of my uncles was, until he retired, a Vice President of an electrical utility company in New Hampshire (USA). He and I used to get into spirited debates about the direction in which the energy industry can and should go. I used to make predictions based on the treads that I was reading and hearing about, and he would strenuously disagree.
My satisfaction was immense (as I'm sure you can imagine) when one of my predictions proved true, and his company started paying its customers to conserve energy because it's cheaper to do that than to build new power plants. Don't be too surprised if things don't go the way you expect them to based on your previous experience. I think we're in a whole new ballgame now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: mousethief Date: 06 Jun 01 - 02:38 PM You like monopolies and I don't? Guess that's a difference, then. alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: CarolC Date: 06 Jun 01 - 02:39 PM Sorry... that should be *trends. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: mousethief Date: 06 Jun 01 - 02:40 PM Or are you saying that you like black-or-white thinking and I don't? Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gas Prices II From: GUEST,UB Dan Date: 06 Jun 01 - 03:20 PM Doug, there are two of us UB folks...Ed has much more credibility than me. And...I do agree with some aspects of what Bartholomew says. I like the mail analogy...USPS exist and is available at cheap affordable price for all...for those who want better service FED EX and various other private companies exist...these private companies encourage the USPS to offer the best service it can, and USPS encourages fed ex to keep prices low. I also think that the current anti trust laws are important. I do disagree with him on some issues...he tends to see some cause and effects differently than I do...for example, Bartholomew thinks cigarette companies work to keep marijuana illegal so they can sell tobacco, I think they sell tobacco because marijuana is illegal. I think we also disagree on the entire legalization of drugs issue. The best comparison to make is that Bartholomewe doesn't trust private industries without government intervention...and I don't trust government without private intervention. We both agree that corruption exists and it does harm, but we fear it most in different sectors. |