the 1% ... another view

omehgosh · January 16, 2012

Awesome thread guys! This is really, really interesting reading. Great way to get the brain working on a chilly, dark, Monday morning! :smile:

Kubrickfan · January 16, 2012

Wasn't the California energy crisis all about the disastrous consequences of letting private industry run the production and sale of energy? They had people shutting down power plants for "maintenance" in order to reduce the supply of energy, jack up the price accordingly, and reap astronomical profits from the public who had nowhere else to buy power. And that's just the first example that comes to mind. Then there's privatization of the water supply in Bolivia...

Private industry can possibly do a better job than government with utilities, but only if there's competition. With a monopoly, you just create another California. And how to ensure there's no monopoly, or simple collusion between profit-oriented corporations? I'd rather have the government running utilities inefficiently, than monopolies running them to maximize profit.

I don't have figures handy, but I seem to recall that the Canadian healthcare system is cheaper and more efficient than the American one. That probably depends how we frame the question and measure efficiency/cheapness, though -- I'm not sure offhand.

Somewhat true. A nation of slaveowners might achieve great economic output but not necessarily a good overall standard of living, right? So the one doesn't automatically lead to the other, but I agree it's a necessary precondition. But... I don't think anyone has disputed this, right? Is anyone here advocating less industry, production, or national prosperity?

I thought Loopie took a pretty good stab at the answer. Definitions of "socialism" (like "capitalism") vary, but nothing about capitalism is antithetical to socialism. Socialism as a political philosophy ("we should all contribute somewhat to our collective interests") works perfectly well with capitalism as I defined it earlier in the thread. Capitalism is about how a society generates wealth. Socialism is about how a society employs that wealth.

I'll be honest though, I'm approaching the limit of how deeply I want to pursue this issue on CERB. It's fun and rewarding to throw ideas out there, but it's not something we're all likely to agree on in the end. We could waste a lot of letters without coming close to a resolution. :)

Thanks to everyone for their contributions -- it's been interesting.

If I recall correctly, the California energy crisis was caused directly by the state government (headed by Gov. Gray Davis ... at the time called "Grayout" Davis) and the state Public Utilities Commission not allowing the utilities in question to raise rates in accordance with increases in energy costs that the utilities had to absorb. That caused the utilities to be unable to supply sufficient quantities of energy without rolling blackouts. The utilities first ran out of money and, due to the failure to increase rates, couldn't borrow money to buy the power. Those power companies had to file for reorganzation and bankruptcy and Gray Davis was recalled and thrown out of office in the middle of his term. This is a perfect example of what I was referring to by the concept of the government trying to control prices ... it may work in the very short term, but its doomed to failure.

And socialism does not work well with capitalism ... I think for the most part, the more socialism exists the less free markets and capitalism you will have. The reason is simple ... the innocent concept of "everyone should share" comes with it the inimical concept of others, including the government, saying that thing I worked hard to produce, or invested my money in, now belongs to someone else who never did anything to earn it. My grandma, grandpa, mom and dad taught me that was stealing. Even when the government does it.

The funny thing is that there is room for anyone, either in the US or Canada, to be part of that 1%. With respect to everyone on this board, I am fortunate enought to be there as well and I definitely wasn't born into it. I have had to work my butt off for everything I've gotten and I guarantee you that I haven't screwed anyone (pun intended ... smile) in the process. You are doing yourself a disservice thinking otherwise, and the harder you work to achieve that, by making good decisions, investing wisely, working hard, and making the most of yourselves benefits everyone else as well as that's the intrinsic nature of free markets and capitalism. Dont sell yourselves short!

I respect everyone on this forum, but I just get annoyed when I see discussions of topics such as socialism as if its a good thing. Its not, and I work with a lot of people that have suffered through its abuses.

I do agree that we will never all agree and I care too much for for the people around this forum to keep debating the point ... so I'm done too.

ostirch · January 16, 2012

If I recall correctly, the California energy crisis was caused directly by the state government (headed by Gov. Gray Davis ... at the time called "Grayout" Davis) and the state Public Utilities Commission not allowing the utilities in question to raise rates in accordance with increases in energy costs that the utilities had to absorb. That caused the utilities to be unable to supply sufficient quantities of energy without rolling blackouts.

I respectfully disagree here. A congressional hearing looked into the matter. Power companies (including Enron) had colluded to keep the supply low to artificially increase rates. Here is some evidence of two Enron traders laughing about the whole matter, it's quite the conversation.