Talk Elections

General Politics => Political Debate => Topic started by: greenforest32 on January 21, 2012, 09:46:59 AM



Title: Should utilities (electricity, water/sewer, etc) be allowed to run for profit?
Post by: greenforest32 on January 21, 2012, 09:46:59 AM
My electricity is provided by a publicly traded, for-profit company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_General_Electric) that profits from the service and pays out dividends to its shareholders. This profit is extracted from the ratepayers and is an unnecessary added cost.

I believe that utilities should not be run for-profit, but rather as at-cost or below-cost (subsidized) public services provided by the government (or a non-profit organization).

Your thoughts?


Title: Re: Should utilities (electricity, water/sewer, etc) be allowed to run for profit?
Post by: TJ in Oregon on January 21, 2012, 02:21:05 PM
We live in a world where now we want people to conserve electricity, be sustainable, and save the environment, meanwhile wanting to lower utility costs and favoring government subsidies to drive prices down even further so they can use even more electricity, requiring a larger carbon footprint, so then we try to limit carbon emissions and spend even more money on inefficient technologies like solar and wind so we can subsidize the whole mess even further and push us all into an even larger government money-sink. Argh! :(


Title: Re: Should utilities (electricity, water/sewer, etc) be allowed to run for profit?
Post by: RI on January 21, 2012, 02:32:11 PM
No.


Title: Re: Should utilities (electricity, water/sewer, etc) be allowed to run for profit?
Post by: Lief 🗽 on January 21, 2012, 04:03:20 PM
Of course not. Only in libertarian fantasyland is this a good idea.


Title: Re: Should utilities (electricity, water/sewer, etc) be allowed to run for profit?
Post by: © tweed on January 21, 2012, 04:05:22 PM
We live in a world where now we want people to conserve electricity, be sustainable, and save the environment, meanwhile wanting to lower utility costs and favoring government subsidies to drive prices down even further so they can use even more electricity, requiring a larger carbon footprint, so then we try to limit carbon emissions and spend even more money on inefficient technologies like solar and wind so we can subsidize the whole mess even further and push us all into an even larger government money-sink. Argh! :(

yeah go have competing sewer systems running though Manhattan.  good idea.


Title: Re: Should utilities (electricity, water/sewer, etc) be allowed to run for profit?
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on January 21, 2012, 04:11:38 PM
Private utilities shouldn't exist.


Title: Re: Should utilities (electricity, water/sewer, etc) be allowed to run for profit?
Post by: TJ in Oregon on January 21, 2012, 04:22:47 PM
We live in a world where now we want people to conserve electricity, be sustainable, and save the environment, meanwhile wanting to lower utility costs and favoring government subsidies to drive prices down even further so they can use even more electricity, requiring a larger carbon footprint, so then we try to limit carbon emissions and spend even more money on inefficient technologies like solar and wind so we can subsidize the whole mess even further and push us all into an even larger government money-sink. Argh! :(

yeah go have competing sewer systems running though Manhattan.  good idea.

You don't have private networks for utilities (and water sewer you probably don't have private anything at least in urban areas, rural ones however are very different). What you need is a public network with privately generated electricity, much like our road system. Just beacuse we have government-sponsored roads doesn't mean we need government sponsored cars.


Title: Re: Should utilities (electricity, water/sewer, etc) be allowed to run for profit?
Post by: k-onmmunist on January 22, 2012, 10:35:33 AM
No. Nationalize them and run them as cheap as possible.


Title: Re: Should utilities (electricity, water/sewer, etc) be allowed to run for profit?
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 22, 2012, 01:07:01 PM
I got my electricity bill today. No.


Title: Re: Should utilities (electricity, water/sewer, etc) be allowed to run for profit?
Post by: Frodo on January 22, 2012, 01:44:40 PM
No. Nationalize them and run them as cheap as possible.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This.  The PEPCO debacle in Maryland should serve as a cautionary note to anyone who thinks that the primary focus of a utility company should be to its shareholders. 


Title: Re: Should utilities (electricity, water/sewer, etc) be allowed to run for profit?
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 23, 2012, 05:11:22 AM
No. Nationalize them and run them as cheap as possible.


Title: Re: Should utilities (electricity, water/sewer, etc) be allowed to run for profit?
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on January 23, 2012, 06:30:46 AM
Private utilities shouldn't exist.


Title: Re: Should utilities (electricity, water/sewer, etc) be allowed to run for profit?
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 25, 2012, 04:11:55 PM
The situation we have in England is clear evidence of why they need to be nationalised.


Title: Re: Should utilities (electricity, water/sewer, etc) be allowed to run for profit?
Post by: k-onmmunist on January 25, 2012, 04:16:14 PM
The situation we have in England is clear evidence of why they need to be nationalised.

Exactly. When people in poorer areas only flush their toilet once a day to save money on the ridiculous water prices, you begin to understand why water privatization is an absolutely moronic idea.


Title: Re: Should utilities (electricity, water/sewer, etc) be allowed to run for profit?
Post by: phk on January 25, 2012, 04:25:37 PM

What about solar panels?


Title: Re: Should utilities (electricity, water/sewer, etc) be allowed to run for profit?
Post by: courts on January 25, 2012, 04:28:02 PM
We live in a world where now we want people to conserve electricity, be sustainable, and save the environment, meanwhile wanting to lower utility costs and favoring government subsidies to drive prices down even further so they can use even more electricity, requiring a larger carbon footprint, so then we try to limit carbon emissions and spend even more money on inefficient technologies like solar and wind so we can subsidize the whole mess even further and push us all into an even larger government money-sink. Argh! :(

Stop making sense.


Title: Re: Should utilities (electricity, water/sewer, etc) be allowed to run for profit?
Post by: John Dibble on January 25, 2012, 07:22:21 PM
I don't think water/sewer practically can practically be run privately, given the nature of the infrastructure necessary for them to run and where the water comes from to begin with. At best the government could contract out the work, but it would have to own the infrastructure.

Electricity is a bit different. The electrical grid itself is the biggest piece of infrastructure, but anyone who can produce electricity can put it on the grid, (IIRC in many places if you put power back onto the grid by generating your own then your electric company has to pay you for it) and as such models exist where multiple companies could be operating on the same infrastructure and therefore compete. In some cases regulation to prevent gouging might be needed, but since the infrastructure does allow for competition of some degree I'm inclined to allow a for profit company to be an available option.


Title: Re: Should utilities (electricity, water/sewer, etc) be allowed to run for profit?
Post by: greenforest32 on January 29, 2012, 12:10:46 AM
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29597

Quote
Democratic Party Platform of 1940
July 15, 1940

Electric Power

During the past seven years the Democratic Party has won the first major victories for the people of the nation in their generation-old contest with the power monopoly.

These victories have resulted in the recognition of certain self evident principles and the realization of vast benefits by the people. These principles, long opposed by the Republican Party, are:

That the power of falling water is a gift from God, and consequently belongs not to a privileged few, but to all the people, who are entitled to enjoy its benefits;

That the people have the right through their government to develop their own power sites and bring low-cost electricity to their homes, farms and factories;

That public utility holding companies must not be permitted to serve as the means by which a few men can pyramid stocks upon stocks for the sole purpose of controlling vast power empires.

We condemn the Republican policies which permitted the victimizing of investors in the securities of private power corporations, and the exploitation of the people by unnecessarily high utility costs.

We condemn the opposition of utility power interests which delayed for years the development of national defense projects in the Tennessee Valley, and which obstructed river basin improvements and other public projects bringing low-cost electric power to the people. The successful power developments in the Tennessee and Columbia River basins show the wisdom of the Democratic Party in establishing government-owned and operated hydro-electric plants in the interests of power and light consumers.

Through these Democratic victories, whole regions have been revived and restored to prosperous habitation. Production costs have been reduced. Industries have been established which employ men and capital. Cheaper electricity has brought vast economic benefits to thousands of homes and communities.

These victories of the people must be safeguarded. They will be turned to defeat if the Republican Party should be returned to power. We pledge our Party militantly to oppose every effort to encroach upon the inherent right of our people to be provided with this primary essential of life at the lowest possible cost.

The nomination of a utility executive by the Republican Party as its presidential candidate raises squarely the issue, whether the nation's water power shall be used for all the people or for the selfish interests of a few. We accept that issue.

What happened to our spine? :(


Title: Re: Should utilities (electricity, water/sewer, etc) be allowed to run for profit?
Post by: Mechaman on January 29, 2012, 12:32:24 AM
We live in a world where now we want people to conserve electricity, be sustainable, and save the environment, meanwhile wanting to lower utility costs and favoring government subsidies to drive prices down even further so they can use even more electricity, requiring a larger carbon footprint, so then we try to limit carbon emissions and spend even more money on inefficient technologies like solar and wind so we can subsidize the whole mess even further and push us all into an even larger government money-sink. Argh! :(

Stop making sense.


Title: Re: Should utilities (electricity, water/sewer, etc) be allowed to run for profit?
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on January 29, 2012, 12:49:58 AM
We live in a world where now we want people to conserve electricity, be sustainable, and save the environment, meanwhile wanting to lower utility costs and favoring government subsidies to drive prices down even further so they can use even more electricity, requiring a larger carbon footprint, so then we try to limit carbon emissions and spend even more money on inefficient technologies like solar and wind so we can subsidize the whole mess even further and push us all into an even larger government money-sink. Argh! :(

Stop making sense.

So I take it you would all be fine heavily subsidizing alternative forms of electricity generation for American consumers, then?


Title: Re: Should utilities (electricity, water/sewer, etc) be allowed to run for profit?
Post by: Gustaf on January 29, 2012, 09:56:45 AM
A natural monopoly obviously cannot be allowed to run unregulated.

But it isn't really cheaper to subsidize it. You're just shifting costs based on ideological considerations.


Title: Re: Should utilities (electricity, water/sewer, etc) be allowed to run for profit?
Post by: TJ in Oregon on January 29, 2012, 10:14:02 AM
We live in a world where now we want people to conserve electricity, be sustainable, and save the environment, meanwhile wanting to lower utility costs and favoring government subsidies to drive prices down even further so they can use even more electricity, requiring a larger carbon footprint, so then we try to limit carbon emissions and spend even more money on inefficient technologies like solar and wind so we can subsidize the whole mess even further and push us all into an even larger government money-sink. Argh! :(

Stop making sense.

So I take it you would all be fine heavily subsidizing alternative forms of electricity generation for American consumers, then?

Not really. I would tolerate some degree of subsidization of large pieces of infrastructure like dams and nuclear reactors, but dislike subsidies for more individualized forms like personal solar panels or oil extraction it begins to lose any sort of public interest. I certainly want us to stop trying to pick energy sources as a government, like say corn-based ethanol that aren't practical.

Sorry guys, but electric bills really aren't that high. My old roommate spends more on alcohol in a weekend than I do on electricity in a month. I fail to see the need to spend a bunch of money subsidizing it for anyone except those who are very, very poor.


Title: Re: Should utilities (electricity, water/sewer, etc) be allowed to run for profit?
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 29, 2012, 02:23:43 PM
No.  Natural monopolies should never be for-profit.


Title: Re: Should utilities (electricity, water/sewer, etc) be allowed to run for profit?
Post by: Roemerista on January 29, 2012, 03:05:31 PM
Absolutely. Profit is not a bad thing for the users...

However, should they be public? That depends on the utility. Take electricity, I don't think the distributive infrastructure should be private, but would have no problem with the producers to be privately held...

In MA we have had a problem with municipal light departments not cashing in the "green" credits, towns losing literally millions just so they can say they are green. When in actuality they are acting counter to the created mechanism to reinforce green activity.
( to be fair, to the rate payer it would not be significant savings...but that is the sort of absurdity you get with non-profit utility...)


Title: Re: Should utilities (electricity, water/sewer, etc) be allowed to run for profit?
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on January 29, 2012, 03:33:13 PM
Of course not. When they are, the price often quadruples.


Title: Re: Should utilities (electricity, water/sewer, etc) be allowed to run for profit?
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on January 29, 2012, 08:36:43 PM
We live in a world where now we want people to conserve electricity, be sustainable, and save the environment, meanwhile wanting to lower utility costs and favoring government subsidies to drive prices down even further so they can use even more electricity, requiring a larger carbon footprint, so then we try to limit carbon emissions and spend even more money on inefficient technologies like solar and wind so we can subsidize the whole mess even further and push us all into an even larger government money-sink. Argh! :(

Stop making sense.

So I take it you would all be fine heavily subsidizing alternative forms of electricity generation for American consumers, then?

Not really.

Then I no longer care about that argument.

Further, all three of you managed to completely miss most of the point anyway. Even if, for the sake of argument, electricity was super cheap for everyone and we never had to worry about paying it forever and ever, I would not support utilities that supply the basic necessities such as water and electricity, being private, just as I have something of a moral objection to the idea of private healthcare.

And I counter your anecdote with my anecdote. My family has routinely spent several hundreds of dollars each month on electricity that we definitely don't go out of our way to waste, and this has been the case over multiple homes. Electricity is most certainly getting more and more expensive and for questionable reasons. I see no problem in wanting to nationalize utilities such as electricity. Personally I've never bought the "waste" argument except with regards to gasoline.


Title: Re: Should utilities (electricity, water/sewer, etc) be allowed to run for profit?
Post by: TJ in Oregon on January 29, 2012, 09:49:47 PM
We live in a world where now we want people to conserve electricity, be sustainable, and save the environment, meanwhile wanting to lower utility costs and favoring government subsidies to drive prices down even further so they can use even more electricity, requiring a larger carbon footprint, so then we try to limit carbon emissions and spend even more money on inefficient technologies like solar and wind so we can subsidize the whole mess even further and push us all into an even larger government money-sink. Argh! :(

Stop making sense.

So I take it you would all be fine heavily subsidizing alternative forms of electricity generation for American consumers, then?

Not really.
Even if, for the sake of argument, electricity was super cheap for everyone and we never had to worry about paying it forever and ever, I would not support utilities that supply the basic necessities such as water and electricity, being private, just as I have something of a moral objection to the idea of private healthcare.

What about food? That's more of a basic necessity than electricity or healthcare. Are you fine with the means for production of food being private?


Title: Re: Should utilities (electricity, water/sewer, etc) be allowed to run for profit?
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on January 29, 2012, 10:45:04 PM
No. Food is not a utility or some form of natural monopoly. The food stamp program is suitable for protecting those basic needs when necessary.


Title: Re: Should utilities (electricity, water/sewer, etc) be allowed to run for profit?
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on January 29, 2012, 11:17:16 PM
We live in a world where now we want people to conserve electricity, be sustainable, and save the environment, meanwhile wanting to lower utility costs and favoring government subsidies to drive prices down even further so they can use even more electricity, requiring a larger carbon footprint, so then we try to limit carbon emissions and spend even more money on inefficient technologies like solar and wind so we can subsidize the whole mess even further and push us all into an even larger government money-sink. Argh! :(

Stop making sense.

So I take it you would all be fine heavily subsidizing alternative forms of electricity generation for American consumers, then?

Not really.
Even if, for the sake of argument, electricity was super cheap for everyone and we never had to worry about paying it forever and ever, I would not support utilities that supply the basic necessities such as water and electricity, being private, just as I have something of a moral objection to the idea of private healthcare.

What about food? That's more of a basic necessity than electricity or healthcare. Are you fine with the means for production of food being private?

The means of production for food should ideally be Third-Sector IMO. It's not a natural monopoly but for the reasons that Marokai articulated I'm uncomfortable with it being primarily for-profit.


Title: Re: Should utilities (electricity, water/sewer, etc) be allowed to run for profit?
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on February 17, 2012, 01:10:07 PM
Regulated monopolies are in general the best model for highly infrastructure dependent services, such as the electric grid.  They allow for a profit incentive that holds costs down, while at the same time encouraging regular maintenance and building the infrastructure to last.  Pre-breakup AT&T was a damn good company that points out the benefits of such a system, but also the pitfalls.  AT&T was an excellent landline voice phone company, but it had trouble in integrating new technologies quickly.  Still, it probably did so faster than it would have if it it had been publicly owned.