Look What The Energy "Crisis" is Causing

“Snakelegs, I agree about misguided intentions. I thought about that after my post. What I consider evil are the stealing and use of guilt that I've seen. It didn't come across very clearly in my post.

Thank you for clearing that up for me Nav. I sometimes feel foolish when I base points on information gleaned from incomplete newspaper resources. I was not fully informed as to the nature of the utility companies out there. There sure seems to be lots of blame to go around, now if only someone could find a solution.

No, Dunadan, I still think slavery is an excellent choice of words. According to dictionaries that I've perused, when anyone is forced to work for no compensation, that is slavery. Free speech can be inflammatory in some folks eyes. John Leo has written some interesting opinion pieces about that in our paper. Are you being emotionally inflammatory, Dunadan?”

“Well, I'll let others decide if I'm being inflammatory.
I think you are being compensated more than most human beings by the fact that you reap the many benefits of living in this country. The slight redistribution of wealth that comes from taxes is a very small price to pay in a country where you have the opportunity to amass great wealth
With all the complaint about taxes, (and I complain, too), I see that the wealthy are still getting wealthier. That doesn't have to be a negative, but giving aid to the small business owners and middle class, (who really stimulate the economy), shouldn't be seen as negative, either. And the poor, who, (contrary to some political propaganda), are willing to provide much of the labor in our capitalistic system, should be helped to live an honorable life. We are ONE country, and there is no reason why we can't help one another out.
Who was it that said, "You can have a country where wealth is concentrated among the few, or you can have democracy, but you can't have both."?”

“I just can't bring myself to feel guilty for being lucky. Oh well, some folks will feel guilty about anything, I suppose.

Providing help and being forced to help are two separate concepts comrade Dunadan. I would never force my ideas of what I consider to be helpful on another. Discuss, yes. Force, never. The world becomes a dangerous place when people start deciding what's best for others.

I find the concept of "concentrated" wealth funny. I suppose some wealthy person could hoard money under their mattress but most invest it back into society. And if they happen to get a return on that money, good for them, they're lucky. How they got that money in the first place? Unless they stole it from someone else, it's not my business nor my place to judge. The world would NOT be a better palce if eveyone acted like I wanted them to. Messiah is not on my resume'.”

“If liberals are truly evil, what term do you use for people like Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot?”

“Dictator comes to mind. Despot fits. Tyrant might work.”

“Arc, you are the one using the term "guilt".
If we are to be one country, then there will have to be some prevailing ideas about how we live together. The Constitution provides a great starting place, then it's up to us folks to hash it out. (This is where Rad says, "pass the pipe".)
Anyway, I've enjoyed hashing it out with you, Arc. I definitely see some of your argument.”

“As I, yours, Dunadan. I enjoy passionate discussion. My ideas are always subject to modification (or complete change) when I hear good, logical argument that makes me think in new ways. Thank God for free speech. Imagine what it would be like to goose step to some societal "norm."

One of my favorite Twilight Zone episodes concerns a crook who dies in a shoot-out. He wakes up in a plush hotel room with a nice man in a white suit. The man in the suit tells him he can have anything he wants. He wants money, he wants women, he wants to party. After about a week of this he's bored stiff and says to the man, "Gee, I never thought heaven would be like this. It's boring getting everything I want." The man in the white suit starts laughing and says, "Who said this was heaven?"

It would be a pretty boring place if everyone agreed with me. Thanks for the discussion everyone, it keeps me thinking.”

“What are the taxes/programgs you would like to opt-out of?
Do you have the time to go through the Federal Budget to list what you don't want to pay for? State and Local too? If you were to refuse to pay for "pork barrel" spending, and the flood control project didn't get built would it only flood your house? Be careful, there are people who would opt-out. I use Daenport, Iowa as an example.
I guess my question is, how would it work? We don't, and can't, live in a true democracy. We have Reps. to work out the details, and all we can do is not re-elect them.”

“What I want, Nav, is less govmint interference in my life. I don't need to be taken care of cradle to grave. Opt out #1: Let me invest my own money for retirement. I can contribute an amount to the pot to help out folks who have been unable to prepare for retirement due to physical or mental disability, but I can do FAR better than 2% return on my money for my own retirement. I DON'T want the govmint doling me my own money when I retire. Govmint programs have a way of expanding once initiated. People want jobs, then they want to secure those jobs, and then they want to expand their influence to assure future employment. The bureaucratic machine in Washington is huge. I have worked both private and state jobs. The inefficiency of govmint is profound. Seniority and politics rule. Any large organization has some institutionalized incompetence. In govmint it's a way of life. Why should I pay a large organization, like the Social Security Administration, to collect, earn a paltry interest income, and then return my money?”

“ALERT!

Frontline has a documentary, about the California "energy crisis", on PBS. It's showing at 10:00(EST tonight on my local station. Check your local listings.

Opt out #2: Federal Flood Insurance. Who's idea was this P.O.S.? It encourages people to build in flood plains and environmentally sensitive coastal areas. When they get flooded out (ooooh, big surprise), we all pay the cost. Anybody who wants to support this govmint boondoggle raise their hand.”

“ME ME I DO OH OH OH PLEASE PICK ME..

Oh wait...

I always get confused by this stuff”

“Arc, Social Security is a fall back to keep a roof over some peoples heads and to give them enough so they don't have to eat dog food. I think we should keep this one just to keep the number of homeless down. I fear it would cost us a whole lot more if we didn't have it.
#2 Federal Disaster Relief. WE AGREE ON SOMETHING! How about if we all help out those poor unfortunate people once? Then they can't get help again for 5 or 10 years.”

“While we're at it how can we rewrite the laws to differentiate "Rights" and "Privileges"?

How many things can you list that are now "Rights"?”

“Nav, you're obfuscating my friend. I thought liberal meant progressive? Seems as if you want the same ol' same ol' status quo. My concern is not what I contribute to other people's safety net. I'm willing to do that, so I won't complain. But if YOU are satisfied getting a 2% return on your retirement money, then let me turn you on to a little secret. Savings accounts have a higher return. Unless you don't plan to collect S.S. You can let the govmint distribute your money to whom they see fit. That would be a very nice way for you to do your "fair share" and not feel guilty.

I don't have a "right" to anything. I have no expectations about my "rights". I'm at the mercy of God's will my friend, and so are we all. Nothing humans ever do will change that.”

“oh, come on, you two.

get a room! LOL!!!!”

“Arc, I' with ya on flood insurance.

The thing with Social Security is that you get a lot of other benefits besides the rate of return, it really is an insurance as well.”

“Hey Snakelegs, you wrote "If liberals are truly evil, what term do you use for people like Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot?" If we could corrlated the leaders above with thier political affiliations, you'll see that liberal democrats are sort of the "minor leagues" of socialism.

Defcon 5 - Hitler (Facist)
Defcon 4 - Stalin (Socialist)
Defcon 3 - Polt Pot (Communist)
Defcon 2 - Bill Clinton (Liberal Democrat)
Defcon 1 - Trent Lott (Conservative Republican)

I'd rather live in defcon 1 1/2 range (my man McCain)”

“Benefits, PedXing? Pray tell what benefits? It's stupidity insurance is all it is. I may be dumb but I ain't stupid.”

“D. Bear, so on arclites "TRULY EVIL" scale, where do these guys fit?”

“How about the recent flooding in (where was it...Davenport, Iowa?) where the town has consistently refused to build a flood wall? The mayor caught a ration of sh!t from FEMA for not doing what almost all the other communities have done to protect from frequent flooding. His response was to say that they loved the river view and a flood wall would ruin the views, and that FEMA doesn't require people who live in 'tornado alley' or in earthquake-prone areas to move...

Moronic? Interesting, anyway.”

“They are all evil snake. In this country, I'll rank general postions in order of most evil to just plain evil.

Lawyers
Politicians
Political Lobbyists
Mainstream Media
Bankers
Telemarketers”

“Facism is the totalitarian regime of the right. Only in the Cold War have we been taught that Communism and Facism are remotely on the same page. Facism in it's purist is intensely nationalistic, whereas Marxism and its derivatives are very globalistic. The only similarity has been the totalitarianism that has sprung up in the bastardizations of Marxist theory (the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba).

And all of these governments have erupted from very charismatic and powerful men, which explains the ensuing totalitarianism pretty well. This might sound a little strange, but during the 30's, when worldwide depression set in, several of these men came into power: Hitler, Stalin, Mussilini (sp??), Roosevelt and Churchill. That's my theory on world politics, in a nutshell.

Go ahead and flame me now.”

“This topic sure degraded :)”

“What's all this FEMA bashing? Without them I might be out of work! I don't understand who pays for what when the water rises but my job is to study how high the water will go.
I just finished a 2" thick report explaining that the FEMA flood zone boundary that they put on the Federal Insurance Rate Map is off by several hundred feet horizontally and over 10 feet vertically. Once FEMA agrees that they were wrong, my client can go build houses with river and golf course views well away from the actual flood plain and charge huge lot premiums.”

“So who saw the Frontline report? Even though the NY Times had its hand in this thing, they still managed to present interesting opinions on a few sides of the issues.

The so-called deregulation in California was no such thing. It was a hybrid regulatory plan that forced the utilities to sell some of their plants and buy power on the spot market. Govmint interference.

State regulations discouraged the building of new power plants even while consumption was rising. Govmint interference.

The State refused to raise consumer prices even when the market price rose, forcing PG&E into bankruptcy. Govmint interference.

The State hired a whole lot of people, at huge taxpayer expense, to try to compete with private brokers and buy power on the open market. They didn?t have the expertise, nor the technology, and paid way too much for power. Govmint interference.

Ferc (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) seems to be firmly in the hands of the energy companies. What, another govmint agency that can be bought? How shocking!


This is from the PG&E site:

?The heart of this crisis for Pacific Gas and Electric Company is that for all of 2000 unregulated wholesale electric prices were far higher than retail consumer rates, which remained frozen by state regulators.?


I pulled this off the Enron (energy company) site:

?Many view California?s electricity crisis as proof that electricity deregulation and indeed deregulation in general does not work. This is wrong. California did not deregulate its electricity market, but rather ?restructured? it, requiring far more state intervention in electricity transactions than existed before. In doing so, the law created a micromanage pseudo-market where suppliers of electricity have the ability and incentive to manipulate prices to their advantage, and utilities are forbidden to shop for better prices. Now, with the centrally-planned and managed market that restructuring?s architects created falling down like a house of cards, state leaders labor under the anxious eyes of state residents, and the curious eyes of the nation. They must contend with burning short-term issues as the state?s utilities approach bankruptcy and the state grid flirts with blackouts. They also must develop a long-run vision and goals for the state?s electricity market and formulate policies to get us there. We argue that the vision ought to be a competitive electricity market and the goals ought to be addressing immediate crises and long-term structural changes to move electricity generation in the state toward competition.?

Mr. Naviguesser, how in the world did you come up with such a clear-cut white hat black hat division? I am stumped, sir.”

“How come Texas gas cost 300% more for California than North Carolina?”

“The laws in California require a more emission resistant fuel mixture. Government Regulations.

Arclite, thanks for doing our homework.”

“bacpac, that's natural gas not gasoline. Pork Barrel spending for corn growers in Iowa is another topic.

arc, I did not catch the Frontline report (PBS is a libreal front).
I did reread my earlier post and just as I thought, I did say it was a bad deregulation plan.
That being said, it was a plan that the utilities helped write (Negotiated if you prefer).
It was a plan that they agreed to.
It was a plan that they profited from.
It was a plan that guaranteed the utilities a floor to prices (this is the ceiling they are crying about now).
The State is buying gas on the spot market because the gas suppliers were afraid the utilities were going to declare bankruptcy.
So, yes I'll take "govmint interference" over "Robber Barons"!
Now a couple of questions: Is it not suspect to quote energy companies when justifying energy prices?
If there is really such a shortage of power, how come this is a California problem and not a national problem? No shortage for the L.A. power co., is there a shortage in your part of the country?
It seems to me that if there is a shortage that's one thing, but if it's a bad plan and we're being taken advantage of then I'm going to raise a hue and cry! (Even if it's only on Trail Talk.)”

“Isn't it ironic that the station wagon has disappeared from the American highway as a result of government fuel milage restrictions on automobiles, but that minivans and SUV's are King of the road?

Guberment is Goofy.”

“Wow! The Naviguesser is a good guesser. How is it you are able to deduce that snakelegs was talking about natural gas and not gas-o-line?

What are you folks using natural gas for in the Summer anyway? Who cares how much it costs if you aren't using it?”

“Oops, I forgot, You aren't allowed to use coal or Nuclear Fuel for electric power like the rest of the country. Sorry.”

“bacpac please try to keep up. I fessed up earlier on this very same thread "I'm Snakelegs at work and The-Naviguesser at home".
The whole thread has been about "The Energy Crisis" which is electricity, which in California is mainly generated by natural gas.
We do have nuclear and hydro (that's dams), but I don't know of any coal deposits close by.”

“Nav, you've got a lot of faith in govmint. Faith is all you can call it. You've got to have the plants to produce the power. Transmission lines can only carry so much.

Were the energy companies predatory? You betcha! They were out to make a profit and the State tried to compete with them. What is the State doing in the energy business? The State created it's own problems in many ways, one of which was to "protect" its citizens from rate increases. What a socialist concept.

You should have seen my huge bill a few months back. I use natural gas. I assumed my responsibility to pay the rate increase. I read where business as a whole posted profits around 9.6% (for the last quarter?), while the energy companies posted profits around 6.8%. Hardly "Robber Barons."

Now the Kalifornica govmint wants the rest of the country to bail them out. Those funny Kalifornicators! What a bunch of faithful people.

Doesn't beating your head against a brick wall get tiring, Nav? And you didn't answer my question: How in the world did you come up with such a clear-cut white hat black hat division?”

“Thanks for the update Snake-guesser. I thought something was a little eerie. They have medication for that Schitzophrenia I hear. :-)”

“Opt-out #3: I have no problem with my Federal Govmint tax dollars going to help folks who live on moving fault lines, deal with mud slides, or forest fires (hell, I live in hurricane alley), but I don't want to pay for State Govmint created problems.

I've got an idea. Why don't Kalifornicans get all those liberal entertainment folks together (Alec Baldwin would be a prime candidate) and get them to contribute, oh say, a million each and fix their own darn problems. Oh that's right, they're liberals, they want everyone else to pay. Sorry.”

“Alec Baldwin is packing up to leave the country remember?”

“The only good thing that comes out of California is wine and The Red Hot Chili Peppers.”

“Hey Arclite, watch yerself, buddy. You're starting to sound like Timothy McVeigh.”

“Nope kleetn, Timmy and I don't share the same radical beliefs about violence. But he's paying for that violence isn't he? He's being killed by the State.”

“Let?s see if I can rephrase my white hat / black hat position to get if not agreement at least understanding.

I believe government gets the white hat because most of the laws and regulations started out to correct a problem or right a wrong, to use your own words ?with good intentions?. Yes these programs have grown and taken on a life of their own, but in the worst case they cost you a thousand or two more dollars a year. Don?t get me wrong, the government needs to be watched and the programs need to be adjusted.
?Business? on the other hand gets the black hat. I mentioned earlier the freight charges of the railroad. Or we could look into the Credit Mobilier. Then there were the Company Towns, where the workers were paid in company script, which could only be spent at the company store and they had to live in company houses (usually going in the hole each month because of the prices charged by the company).
Shall we jump to the more recent past? How many companies would have used pollution control if it were not legislated? The Big 3 claimed the cost of PCV valves would put them out of business. Was it the Chicago River that caught on fire? Paper companies dumping mercury into the rivers was ok because it only affected the fishing industry (oh and the people who ate fish). Read a newspaper today, ?It?s ok to pollute if it?s profitable.?
Currently Phillip Morris realized they weren?t looking very good making cigarettes, so they launched a PR campaign giving away $1 million to worthy causes and spending $5 million to tell everyone about it. Don?t you think that should be reversed to be truthful advertising? The fad of ?Downsizing? is still going on today. Disney will pay Michael Eisner more than $20 million again this year, but 4000 people are working in unprofitable divisions. What management decision caused them to be unprofitable by not adapting to the market? Couldn?t these assets have been reassigned? Consider the amount of money Disney has paid Eisner over the years, and he?s still working. I don?t think money is the motivator here. Shouldn?t the company figure out another way to compensate this guy and save that cash for other needs?
Worst case here, business will take your livelihood.

So in my humble opinion, I?m sure glad the government is there to protect me from the abuses of business. No, neither one is perfect (maybe it should be gray hats and dark gray hats) but I do fear the greed of business much more than the ineptitude of government.”

“Grey hats is good, I can go there.

I too believe that government should play a watchdog role with respect to business. Pollution is a good example. Since there doesn't seem to be any profit motive for business not to pollute, they probably will. The profit motive should be that we don't buy any products from a company that pollutes, but with all the mergers, it's tough to tell who's who without a program anymore. That takes homework.

I think it's great that Phillip Morris contributes to charitable causes. Anybody with half a brain knows to believe that cigarettes are addictive and that they cause disease. How much truth do you want? I suspect you have motives of trying to protect people from themselves here. Bad Nav, bad, bad Nav. Trying to control people's behavior again?

What business is it of yours how Disney chooses to run their business? None. Don't want to support Disney? Don't go there. Find out all of their subsidiaries, and don't buy their products. Now that's democracy. You get to vote with your purchases.

Business can be sued. Business transactions are public record. Try sueing government. Try to keep track of all the backroom deals that buy off our politicians. In my humble opinion, business is much more accountable than big government. Big government consists of many' many bureacrats who are not elected officials. Good intentions don't mean squat. Less is more, in my opinion. Just look to the "California energy crisis" to see what happens when government takes too much control. And ya'll have fun paying for your mistakes, ya hear.”

“It cracks me up (really) that you see the Calif situation a bad government and I see it as bad business.
"Can't we all just just get along?"

I'm not suggesting that Disney be regulated, more of a "What are they thinking?", and couldn't our wise business leaders come up with a better plan.

Hy Ho, It's off to work I go.”

“Interesting take, Nav. Even PBS and the NY Times couldn't make their report look as if it were bad business and not bad government. Nice rose colored glasses you got though.”

“How about Bad Business taking advantage of poor decision making by inept government.
Business practices can be rather predatory as in the case of California.”

“Tom, I almost totally agree with you there. Dang, I got those same monkeys flyin' out of my butt now. Although I would argue that the reaction of business was totally in their own self-interest, not bad. Business exists to make a profit. Is it Darwinistic towards incompetence? You betcha. That keeps the market place healthy and the California government was WAY out of it's league.

Nice article about experiments that were conducted on kids in orphanages during the ?40?s in today?s paper. Apparently some University researchers actually taught kids how to stutter in order to learn about speech disorders. Some of these kids?s lives were ruined. Said a fellow scientist of the researcher, ?Johnson was an extremely ethical and moral person, and if something happened to those children it was because of something he did not foresee."? Boy, does that sound familiar. Reminds me of the thalidomide experiments performed on pregnant women, or the nuke tests where they marched those soldiers into ground zero to study the effects of radiation.

Yep, you got to have faith in big government the benevolent protector, Naviguesser, because logic doesn?t apply here.”

“Don't get me started on Responsible Government and the Vietnam War!”

“Were the spaces between the lines SO BIG that you read I think government is perfection? I don't think so. I did in fact say it was a bad plan. I think your statement about preditory business serves MY point.
And "the reaction of business was totally in their own self-interest, not bad." but "liberals are truly evil" I can only marvel at the scale you are using. Let me get this straight, if a person takes advantage of the welfare system then that's a crime, but if a business takes advantage of customers then that's to be encouraged?”

“FACT CHECK: Thalidomide was not a government experiment gone wrong. It was a commercial drug put out by business. The thalidomide disaster came because government failed to prevent it from going to market. This time government did not regulate enough.

Sometimes government over-regulates, sometimes it under-regulates. Thalidomide was a case of under-regulation.”

“No, let's explain again. Business does not force you to buy, government does. That is what differentiates slavery. This is not a difficult concept here.

Thanks for the explanation, PedX. I really wasn't sure who was responsible for Thalidomide. I did an extensive report on LSD in high school and the literature that I read about Thalidomide talked as if it was tested with government sanction during the process for FDA approval. Maybe you're right about not being regulated enough. That certainly is a public health issue and I support the FDA. They're a little slow sometimes, but I'd rather have them be thorough. Good government program.”

“Naviguesser,
Let me also take the time to explain another pervasive form of evil liberal philosophy, hypocrisy. There are many types of liberal hypocrisy, one being the notion that minorities should not be subject to the tyranny of the majority while forcing Christian Conservatives to support their birth control and abortion programs (and no, I?m not a Christian Conservative) through taxation. I guess it all depends upon your definition, but I think it is evil to be self-deluded into thinking you are performing noble deeds while causing harm to others. Hypocrisy (the false assumption of virtue) is evil in my opinion. Dante had a special place in his inferno for that particular form of lowlife. I know that all of the anti-business people here have researched, very carefully, every stock that they own. They have only invested in stocks that support their idea of ?good business? and are probably heavily invested in Ben & Jerry type companies. Or they have kept all of their money in their beloved government bonds at 2% interest. To do otherwise would be hypocritical. To not understand that it would be hypocritical to invest in the stock market, while thinking business does harm to others, is self-delusional. I know many hypocritical, anti-business liberals.”