Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rocklobster who wrote (82067)	12/19/2000 10:16:16 AM
From: Gottfried	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

Rocklobster, thanks for your thoughts. I'm not fully informed on this complicated subject of energy deregulation. But it does seem you can't have just a little deregulation. And you can't prohibit construction of power plants without causing supply problems. Gottfried

To: rocklobster who wrote (82067)	12/19/2000 10:51:32 AM
From: The Ox	Respond to of 95453

Hi rock, In theory, your concept is sound and the principles are accurate. I'm going to discuss theory in this post and it's not meant as a reflection of the CA situation. In practical application, there are situations where it's possible for a business(es) to have monopoly control over a market. This 'control' was given to the(se) business(es) as part of an agreement with the government that the business(es) would provide a 'fair' market environment for the consumer. If a business (or businesses) takes advantage of the market landscape and abuses the 'control' which was granted to them in agreement with the government, then gouging can occur and the only remedy is through the courts. This situation can occur regardless of failed energy policies or poor planning but the failure can inflate a bad situation making it worse.