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.

Politics : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BCherry168 who wrote (3643)	4/22/2001 6:25:11 PM
From: Gottfried	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

BC, >Pretty much delineates the differences between free market capitalism and socialism.< I think we'll get a better discussion if we don't pigeonhole. Especially 'socialism' carries a lot of emotional baggage. We're better off discussing what works and what does not. Then there is no need to split up into 'sides'. Gottfried

To: BCherry168 who wrote (3643)	4/22/2001 6:59:16 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Respond to of 23153

BCherry. You've got me with your question; "who do you intend to make the decision as to what amount of profit would induce people to take the investment risks associated with providing energy to people at a price they want to pay?" The only answer is that it has to be some regulatory agency, probably federal. I hate to say that because first, the regulator will ultimately become the tool of the regulated where a lot of money is involved and, second, even while that process is developing the regulator will undoubtedly make poor choices. In order to have the best of bad worlds, the system should be unregulated in as many aspects as possible and the regulator should act only on the margins, and then with a mind to encouraging the development of excess capacity and other sources of energy. In other words, regulate as little as possible and err on the side of encouraging energy supply. With regard to the question; "Now California, having royally screwed it up, wants the rest of the country to bail them out. That leads to the next question: Why should we? And another: At what price?" I cannot express an opinion on the question "At what price?" I haven't thought it through. I do have on opinion on the question of "Why should we?" We should help, not "bail" them out, because THEY ARE US and because this is a problem that cannot be worked out within the state; the supply issues cross state lines. I think that when we talk about California we're talking about the intels and other silicon valley giants as well as an agriculture that is second to none in this country. The energy crisis in California, if left to it's own devices, will weaken the economy of this nation and it won't be just Wisc. and Mass. companies taking up the slack. It will be S. American and Australian ranchers and farmers and Japanese, Korean, Chinese and Taiwanese manufacturers displacing American company goods, equipment and technological knowhow. It will be all of us facing higher prices for food, for manufactured goods and facing less demand for the products our friends and neighbors make their living producing. Not helping California through this crisis makes no more sense than treating any other state as if it's problems were it's own and not related to the nation as a whole. I thought that's why we were a nation instead of 50 seperate countries. I thought that the federal government existed for the purpose of handling problems whose origins and solutions crossed state lines. I can see why individuals might look at California's problems as existing within her borders only, but I can't understand the federal government's position on this. If we have an energy induced recession or depression, the cost will be shared in many homes all across the country and it will have started in California. I think we need to fix it on a federal level. I don't think it needs to be shared equally with other states; let California bear the biggest burden, but make no mistake, the California energy problem is a national problem and we need to do what we can to alleviate it before we all pay a high price. I think those of us that post on this board have already paid a price. I know that the one fear that keeps me with light finger on the sell button, and has for some time, is the fear that the energy problems will melt down the economy and lead to a recession. I watch California's problems and see more looming in the home of 11% of our gross domestic product. I'm sure others do also. I think the market is smart enough to see the looming crisis in California as a national crisis even if the Feds don't appreciate the dangers yet. Ed