Re: [Amc-list] Amc-list Digest, Vol 9, Issue 29

[Archimedes <Freedom@xxxxxxxx>]

>I always wondered why electricity was so (comparatively) cheap in South Carolina. Well, the main producer is the state! 


Yeah, on the front end.  But you can't total up cost until you see the back end, too -- there are doubtless state subsidies to the operating agencies.  And don't forget that state agencies also have a benefit not available to the private sector -- they don't have to pay taxes on sales and many other things.  In many states, that can add up quite rapidly to almost a 20% advantage.


>Several dams and at least two nuclear power plants are all owned and run by the state. Local Co-ops handle local distribution and service, but all buy from the state and prices they charge are state regulated. CA deregulated some years ago with disastrous results! 


California did *not* deregulate its energy industry; that's simply an outright lie from the same kind of politicians who said things like "I am not a crook" and "I did not have sex with that woman".

During the 1990s, California deregulated the wholesale price of electric power but imposed price controls on retail prices. It also outlawed long-term contracts that allowed power distributors to lock in low prices, and it prohibited vertical integration in the electric power industry. The state is also famous for using regulation to stop virtually all expansion of electric power supply out of "environmental concerns," guaranteeing an energy crisis. It is glaringly obvious that California?s energy problems were (and are still being) caused by constant government meddling.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/mercer2.html


>Necessities simply need to be regulated by the government when industry proves it can't properly regulate itself. 


That right there is a mistake.  No petro product is a necessity.  The human race survived just fine for its entire history right up until about 100 years ago -- all of that time basically doing without.

There is no "right" to cheap gas.


>There's enough competition in markets like food that there seems to be no need for regulation. The oil market is apparently small enough for the "good ol' boys" to stick together and stick it to us. Regulation is the only way to keep prices from fluctuating as wildly as they have been. Even semi-regulation would be better than none! By that I mean something like a law preventing more than a certain percentage price hike in the wake of a natural disaster. Oil companies showed their true colors in the wake of hurricane Katrina. It takes one heartless SOB to hike prices way up when most of the country is in shock from a natural disaster like that. There was no fuel down there for a while, so it wasn't like more was being used, and people that literally lost nearly everything they had needed gas to power generators and such just to survive. Then to post record profits for the quarter?? 

Oh, come on, Frank.  Exxon's profit percentage no more than the makers of Viagra and many of the media companies who keep feeding us this "oscene profit" line:

http://finance.aol.com/usw/quotes/stockscreener?c_mc=%3E%3D100B&f_pm=11%2C100&r_dv=&r_nor=20&ord_by=MARKET_CAP&ord_dir=DESC

AMC had some good years when its profits approached 20%.  But I doubt any of us would have decried their success.

The truth is that if people had used the Katrina disaster to voluntarily reduce their petro usage -- canceled unecessary travel, bike to work or work from home, and walked or biked on errands such as the bank, convenience store, or whatever, the falling demand would have immediately stabilized prices.  We all refused -- you included.  None of us changed our behavior.  Why do you demand altruism from businessmen that you don't demand of yourself?

If we want to look for the heartless SOB's who caused rising prices, the place to look is the mirror.

-- Marc



_______________________________________________
Amc-list mailing list
Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list