Post #53,497
9/27/02 10:27:29 AM
|
Revisiting the California energy crisis
Many here blamed it on the state's government; unwise and foolhardy decisons by california politicos was entirely the reason, yada yada yada.
Others were more cynical and suspected it was an artificial shortage that caused the crisis.
Guess who was [link|http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/27/opinion/27KRUG.html|right].
"A civilian gang of thieving lobbyists for the military industrial complex is running the White House. If to be against them is considered unpatriotic -- Hell, then call me a traitor."
-- Hunter S. Thompson
|
Post #53,498
9/27/02 10:38:39 AM
|
could they have done it without stupid legislators? No
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
qui mori didicit servire dedidicit
|
Post #53,506
9/27/02 11:11:14 AM
|
C'mon Bill, corporate greed was responsible
Perhaps enabled by political stupidity, but the direct cause was the greed of Enron and it's ilk. Artificial shortages were not planned and implemented by the California legislature.
"A civilian gang of thieving lobbyists for the military industrial complex is running the White House. If to be against them is considered unpatriotic -- Hell, then call me a traitor."
-- Hunter S. Thompson
|
Post #53,519
9/27/02 11:52:34 AM
|
Nope...but the ability for them...
...to be milked like that was certainly created by those legislators.
Deregulation of power is a bad idea. Leaving the deregulation methodology to the states is an even worse idea.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #53,522
9/27/02 12:12:40 PM
|
How .... bizarre
Corporations rip off billions and somehow it's the fault of the legislators for making it a possibility?
And if I start a forest fire is it the fault of the park service for allowing me to enter?
Once again, the direct cause of the California energy crisis was the energy companies creating an artifical shortage. Period.
"A civilian gang of thieving lobbyists for the military industrial complex is running the White House. If to be against them is considered unpatriotic -- Hell, then call me a traitor."
-- Hunter S. Thompson
|
Post #53,565
9/27/02 2:25:04 PM
|
Not entirely true...
Environmentalists in California have actively fought the building of new power plants for close to 20 years.
Heck, in one article I read during the power crunch, a major Internet company (Cisco?) even opposed the building of a proposed power plant next to their new corporate HDQ.
The same article said that only 1 or 2 power plants had been built in the 1990's in CA, versus 20 (or more) new plants in Texas.
Also, if CA does buy out of state, a lot of electricity is lost in the delivery of enough KW hours to CA through the power lines.
So, I blame CA legislators and environmental goobers for not building enough power plants to keep up with the growth, and then I blame the CA legislators again for creating an open market system where companies could exploit them, when they had the option to leave some controls on the sale of power.
Finally, I'm scared to death of the fact that Texas just deregulated their power, and am concerned that we'll run into the same market manipulation by power companies in the near future.
A few things must be regulated.
Water, natural gas, roads, power, local phone service (the wires and switches anyway), the stock market, and now I'm even beginning to think that maybe we should include the Internet in there.
|
Post #53,578
9/27/02 2:54:40 PM
|
The role of Government, Business, and Religion...
...in everyday life.
I've had this idea floating around in my head about the three branches of "life" - and for some reason, your post made me think of it. In a (vastly oversimplified) view of the world, there are three "branches" of society which deal with three needs:
1. Body - The entity (AKA Government) is responsible for providing the basic framework of society - the business of guaranteeing basic necessities for survival. Note that what is essential for survival varies from culture to culture - 2000 years ago, clean water, some land, and a hut was about it - these days, it's medical care, proper nutrition, food, housing, transportation frameworks and communications, possibly including power. This doesn't mean that the "Government" has to produce said items - just that it should guarantee reasonable and efficient access to those items.
2. Mind - This "entity" (AKA Economy) is responsible for providing material goods that are not "required" for survival, but are not "free" to everybody - basically "luxury" goods.
3. Soul - This "entity" (AKA Religion, but including agnosticism and atheism) is specifically for dealing with the metaphysical questions - why are we here, and now that we're here, what should we do with our lives?
So, what's so important about these distinctions? Well, I think that each "entity" is more efficient at providing the kind of "goods" that it is originally from - and that the philosophy that works for one "entity" does not work so well for another. Government trying to run business and establish religion == Bad. Business manipulating government and twisting religion for commercial means == Bad. Religion dictating law and running a business == Bad. This is all IMO, but there are plenty of examples out there...
This is just a random seed of thought put out by some guy who hasn't had enough sleep in a few days, so it may not be too clear - but if somebody knows what I'm saying, then feel free to translate for everybody else.
End of world rescheduled for day after tomorrow. Something should probably be done. Please advise.
|
Post #53,525
9/27/02 12:16:48 PM
|
It's really unfair to compare . .
. . legislators selected by the public on the basis of fundraising ability and good camera smiles, to corporate execs selected specifically for proven skills at deception, fraud. under the table deal making and complete absence of ethics. It's really amazing they do as well as they do, because the political process has stacked the deck here.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #53,551
9/27/02 1:43:38 PM
|
Deregulation? California? Hahahahaha
*Real* deregulation, not this bullshit regulated deregulation that encourages profiteering such as in California, isn't bad.
The lawyers would mostly rather be what they are than get out of the way even if the cost was Hammerfall. - Jerry Pournelle
|
Post #53,535
9/27/02 12:33:15 PM
|
if the legislation wasnt enacted, could it have happened? no
If you design a government program to allocate or de-allocate funds/protection of the citizenry etc, private parties will immediately pickup any perceived advantages. If the law allowed plants to go offline to create artificial shortages that is tough titties. Like another Program HUD you will find all sorts of powerful people lined up at the trough. Look at Jesse Jackson, legal extortion using the 501c laws that contain zero oversite. The law makers created the rent and then led the camel with the assistance of lobbyists intent on creating the megaprofits. The lawmakers are responsible.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
qui mori didicit servire dedidicit
|
Post #53,541
9/27/02 1:07:26 PM
|
Defending thieves because of bad locks.
Sorry Bill, A thief is still a thief even if the property owner was stupid.
"A civilian gang of thieving lobbyists for the military industrial complex is running the White House. If to be against them is considered unpatriotic -- Hell, then call me a traitor."
-- Hunter S. Thompson
|
Post #53,543
9/27/02 1:15:34 PM
|
I agree, but not ethically.
The elected morons made it LEGAL for it to happen (and setup the system to allow it).
But this ends up as a "legal" vs "ethical" debate which never gets anywhere.
From my point-of-view, both are "guilty", but of different "crimes".
The elected officials are "guilty" of NOT serving the public interests.
The executives at the power companies are "guilty" of unethically exploiting a situation.
Neither of which are punishable under our legal system.
|
Post #53,546
9/27/02 1:27:00 PM
|
you said what I meant
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
qui mori didicit servire dedidicit
|
Post #53,512
9/27/02 11:23:14 AM
|
The real question is...
... where they stupid, or mendacious?
If the answer is mendacious, they (and the heads of these companies) should end up being charged with crimes. The other question is... will they?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *
* [link|http://consultron.ca |[link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] ] irc.ecomstation.ca *
* Laval Qu\ufffdbec Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
