Should utilities (electricity, water/sewer, etc) be allowed to run for profit?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 03:18:38 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Should utilities (electricity, water/sewer, etc) be allowed to run for profit?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Poll
Question: Should utilities (electricity, water/sewer, etc) be allowed to run for profit?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 38

Author Topic: Should utilities (electricity, water/sewer, etc) be allowed to run for profit?  (Read 2947 times)
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 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! Sad

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.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 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! Sad

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?
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 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.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,220


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 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! Sad

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.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 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.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.04 seconds with 13 queries.