Public Fuel and Power Act of 2014 (Final vote)

[DemPGH]

I like this (the amended version, that is), FTR. It's always irked me that companies make gi-normous profits on things that are essential to daily living considering that this is the 21st century. This is a big, bold bill that I will support! I'm not a big fan of nationalizing everything, but in this instance I think public (regional or otherwise) ownership can streamline energy and keep it affordable. And, almost anything that seeks to end a private, for-mega-profit monopoly will have my support.

I will have further comment if it strikes me.

[DemPGH]

Yeah, I like this for reasons I mentioned earlier. I just think, to those who might object, that the private sector, because it is based upon profit, is not always the answer to every issue - particularly with regard to providing a service like clean energy and power. That said, there are definitely instances in which I do not favor public management or ownership, but there are legitimate [RL] issues that I think this bill addresses.

[DemPGH]

I really don't understand how two different sides can look at an issue and forecast geometrically opposite outcomes. Besides, I don't think wind and water are all we're talking about either and I don't know why the government running it would result in catastrophe.

I need real life examples, not forecasts and numbers and so on because all that can be manipulated. Where was this tried, did it fail, did it not fail? Why is the TVA a success?

If 100% renewable is a problem, that could be scaled back. Look, I'm not anti-nuclear. I know there are dangers associated with it, but it's technology that needs to be pursued. I mean a spoonful of nuclear material could run a household for a couple lifetimes.

[DemPGH]

Bore and TYrion,

Yes, I'd be willing to do a redraft that eases concerns enough so that we can pass this and not have something that those who oppose it consider egregious. In fact, I'd be happy to! I agree with the aim of the original bill, and I appreciate Nix's input as well. If several of us put our heads together, we might be able to come with something pretty good.

[DemPGH]

That looks like a good step in the right direction, having skimmed it!

The thing about Exxon Mobil and BP and such is that beyond a certain threshold we could tax the bejesus out of their profits. I'd love to do that anyway.

We should have an AEA person, at least ideally, and that person would probably be a deputy under the SoIA, or the SoIA could "monitor" this, facilitate it, whatever.

[DemPGH]

I won't be vetoing this, ftr. I would consider a redraft, but I think Bore has done a good job with his edit. I'll weigh it closely before signing, though.

I also agree we're at an impasse. It sounds to me like the liquor store debates here in Pennsylvania. We have public / state run wine and liquor stores, which do three things: Keep prices stable and affordable, pay reasonably good wages to employees (who actually have a union! - imagine that), and the crucial thing is, they keep money in the system. When you make something public, it feeds itself. Does that make sense? So when I buy my Cabernet Sauvignon, it's going into the state system as opposed to the coffers of some tycoon who bought up the wine store as a side venture and who pays his help as little as he absolutely can get away with (i.e., minimum wage).

That said, I don't support making everything public, but the case has been made here and as someone who owns a [hybrid] car and fills it up with gas so it will run, I support the idea of this.

[DemPGH]

Deus, the right wing arguments against this are end of the world, etc., and I have no reason to accept that as yet. Because what's behind it is "muh private corporations!"

I mean, I live in PA . . . We at the moment are run top down by the GOP, and they could not privatize the booze stores because it was going to be a financial disaster.

[DemPGH]

lol, so the status of this is . It was declared passed but people are changing votes.

Somehow, I just imagine this ending in a brawl, you know? This has to end with a battle royal or something, haha.

[DemPGH]

So this fails then, it looks like. No matter, I'll simply reintroduce it into the queue and we can resume debate, since it looks like at least the majority actually wants to pass this bill, they just don't feel entirely comfortable with the version as is proposed. Of course, this entire debacle could have been avoided had anyone other than me or Griffin or Cynic had bothered to comment in the early stages of this debate.

Assuming that the clogging rule is not in the way, I'll try to move it along with an exec slot or one of the slots that I have. I never thought it would get this far, actually, and when I jumped in to defend it it was toward the end. So I'll be more involved this time and do some research to support a new one. For one thing, we could certainly create a national company, and I think the big concern was compensation (the cost of) for nationalizing the energy sector.

[DemPGH]

The conversation needs to turn toward the amount of money that would be raised and the necessity of investing it and spending it wisely to keep prices low.

[DemPGH]

It baffles me that people don't think outside of a private enterprise system. The thing is, when we nationalize an industry like energy WE make the profit. We'll raise massive amounts of money, so instead of it going to an elite group of shareholders, it goes to us, and the onus is on us to spend and invest the money wisely to keep prices down. I presume that the proposed AEA would do that.

We're not talking about foreign companies; we're talking about Atlasia and Atlasian resources. We could create national companies if we wanted to and nationalize the ones that are here now.

The government can cull resources. Why could the private system improvise and innovate and not a national company? Don't we have access to the same minds, the military, and the same scientists? I sure as hell think so.

If we nationalize, it will be far easier to oversee environmental safety and regulation as well.

[DemPGH]

The objective is to tap into the profits that they make so as to redirect, invest, etc. that money, which will drive down cost. In the short term we might lose money, but not in the long term. I don't see how running the energy sector will result in long term losses anymore than running a casino provided that someone is actually directing it.

And Simfan, the case HAS been made, you just don't accept it.

[DemPGH]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That I'm interested in, and it's worth looking into. I fear it depends upon where one gets one's information, though. That's because there are a lot of factors and variables.

Simfan, I think you know I was not inferring that you are stupid. I think you know that I meant that you simply disagree with the myriad number of reasons that have been given. Nevertheless, I gave you a specific reason - tap into the profit pool and redirect and invest that money, and how did you respond? A tangent on rate comparisons and an insinuation that I think you're stupid. Not so. I also think this is a resource that should belong to the citizens, not a corporation. That's another reason. 

Sigh. Okay, I'm done and out. This conversation can serve no purpose any longer. I'll await a new bill, assuming that there is to be one, and proceed from that point.