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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: flatsville who wrote (100455)	5/8/2001 8:42:27 AM
From: Don Lloyd	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

...Should you find an area where dereg actually has resulted in mythical lower costs to the consumer (as it has been hawked) please let me know. Even if true deregulation had actually been implemented somewhere, the observation of actual consumer prices would be meaningless in and of itself in judging the process. The purpose of a free market is to distribute a scarce good to its most valued uses and balance supply and demand by impacting both. No one can know what a proper price is except as a result of a market process, so if the price either rises or falls by a factor of 10, it says nothing useful by itself. What we do know is that a persistent shortage indicates either that prices are too low or that there exist regulatory or other barriers to entry or both. If a proponent of deregulation claims that consumer prices will necessarily fall he is every bit as much of an ignoramus as a so-called consumer advocate who cares about nothing but consumer prices even to the point of shortages. If the market price for a necessity is judged to be too high for a portion of the population, subsidies or vouchers that maintain market discipline and incentives across the board may be appropriate. Destroying the market is certainly not the answer. Regards, Don

To: flatsville who wrote (100455)	5/8/2001 10:23:19 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Flats, the costs of producing energy have gone up across the board - coal, petroleum, natural gas, it's all more expensive than it used to be. Labor costs are higher for everyone. Benefit costs are higher for everyone, especially health care. Environmental regulations are more stringent for everyone. So why do you expect the price of energy to have gone down? Competition can't work miracles. At the same time, government regulators can't regulate away economic reality.

To: flatsville who wrote (100455)	5/8/2001 11:18:45 AM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

other posters make some good points, but I also believe that "gouging" goes on -- the problem is that it is difficult to get real competition in this biz -- it is so capital intensive and I know I've said this 100 times -- the model is flawed -- transmission and generation are both necessary -- how can capital be efficiently allocated between the two if one is regulated an the other isn't? PhD economists haven't answered this fundamental question ... Markets aren't always the best answer ... and yes, I'm from the show-me state.