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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (146624)	5/20/2001 8:36:06 AM
From: JDN	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Dear Pat: Be careful, you might just end up losing your Democracy with talk like that!! It will be interesting to eventually learn the truth. I have seen figures like you mention spouted about but frankly, suspect they are false. I seriously doubt anyone could raise prices in the percentages you mention unless costs also went up accordingly and get away with it, competitors from all over would jump in to make those HUGE PROFITS you are talking about. Also, I own an amalgamation of oil and gas stocks in a unit trust and although they have appreciated nicely its NO WHERE NEAR what one would expect if everything was so rosy for them as you indicate. jdn

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (146624)	5/20/2001 10:32:24 AM
From: SecularBull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Patricia, even if you took control of those systems in your state, you would remain under-powered. A great deal of the deficit is pumped into your state from out of state as it is, and you would not be able to extort that from anyone. The problems in CA were and are created in Sacramento, not elsewhere. ~SB~

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (146624)	5/20/2001 1:03:05 PM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

California Unplugged Environmentalists dreamed of soft power. The state woke up in the dark. by William Tucker spectator.org Following this "soft path" would mean: 1) making spectacular but achievable gains in energy conservation, 2) building small "co-generation" plants that produced both electricity and steam for industrial heat, and 3) setting up a "transitional" period in which fossil fuels would be employed until replaced by "soft" technologies such as solar, wind, and small hydro. By 2025, we could be living in Energy Utopia -- a world running entirely on renewable resources. Ideas have consequences. This author contends the problem started in the Jerry Brown era of CA government when the dream was to de-centralize power generation with boutique alternates. Jerry and Gray Davis, his chief of staff took their cues from the Friends of the Dirt policy book.

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (146624)	5/20/2001 2:01:49 PM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

You're showing your colors, Patricia. <<seize the power generators>>

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (146624)	5/20/2001 4:28:24 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 769670

.."seize the power generators".. After reading your last post, I presume you are prepared to stand by your reverence for private property should the State decide to relieve you of your home at the price you paid for it. The Resident Burned Out Taxpayer up here had some things to add to the conversation here....He is tired of paying for the political nonsense in this State ($3900 per capita vs. CA's $1833 per capita*) and then being confronted with the need to pay for the political nonsense in your State, as it iterates through the region. (We don't have a cap on our energy prices like the one that has led you into your current situation.) He has this to say about the situation: And I quote: "The thought that the State can usurp private property in a free society without demonstrating eminent domain through Constitutionally guaranteed "due process" and paying "just compensation" is alarming. To then think that the State can do a better job of building, running and managing an energy system (or any other system for that matter) better than the private enterprise system with it's built-in insensitive for success and penalties for failure (i.e., not subject to short term self serving political manipulation).is demonstrably ludicrous. As a comparative example, take a look at the Texas or the Pennsylvania experience where true deregulation has been implemented with the result that they have lower prices, energy surpluses and aggressive plans to increase energy supplies another 70% in the next five years. (i..e, see Wall Street Journal 5/16 Editorial page). In this context, it is instructive to look, for example, at the State run public education systems where tests recently conclude that 70% OF 4th GRADERS CAN NOT READ!!!!! This, along with California's misguided deregulation scheme, provides an excellent example of the type of performance that issues from a state monopoly with its political pressures and perverse incentives. In WA state, the bulk of our taxes go to the state education system where test scores continue to plummet as education budgets soar and only 22 percent of every tax dollar makes it into the classroom after running through the labyrinth of government and teachers union sponsored beaurecuratic hurtles. the same holds true for energy, or any other area the government has chosen to usurp (with the notable exception of defense, law enforcement, and other legitimate government roles set forth in the Constitution ) The trouble in CA is born and bred of the politics of CA. Your so called energy policy and deregulation program was disastrous from the start. Common sense stripped of party loyalty and biases will lead any thinking person to understand that deregulation does not mean entering into "Short term" contracts, capping production prices and consumer prices for prolonged periods of time as demand continues to rise while the political establishment stands in the way of increasing production capacity. The approach ultimately yields a situation where demand outstrips supply and prices rise as the economic system moves to re-establish a balance between supply and demand. Keep in mind that once this situation arises, it takes a protracted "Lead Time" ( 3-5 years) to implement corrective action and bring additional capacity to bear presuming the previous hurdles to increase supply are removed (i.e., permitting delays, etc.) To repeat - ultimately the laws of economics 101 are evoked by the reality of the situation and the market reacts by raising prices AT THE MARGIN in an attempt to reconcile demand with reduced supply. BTW, if the energy companies don't make profits, where, pray tell, do you think the capital for additional power plants and transmission systems is going to come from? Are you prepared to invest in a company that doesn't make profits or provide a superior return on shareholders equity? If not you, who? The government with higher taxes, inefficiency, lack of foresight and the passions of the political arena? Looking out of my knothole, it is disheartening in the extreme to find that those who feel so passionately about a subject such as this where they know so little or are so obviously ill informed. In closing, I see no reason why this problem, or subject, properly understood, should be a cause for political strife. The only real source is the environmental lobby where, again, everything is seen in a state of black or white and no quarter is given to reason or reality. If California persists in letting this approach dominate its policy and actions, you may be assured that the economy will suffer grievously as will the price of your home and everything else. From what little I know of the CA situation, there appears enough blame to go around to all parties and organizations. Just so you know, CA is on a grid that is shared with the other Western States. While your energy bills have remained constant, mine have increased 275% in the last few months, as CA's problems have been exported to the NW Region. This whole subject is not (or at least it shouldn't be) a Republication nor a Democrat issue. The only hope any of us have for all of us is to surmount political biases and allegiances, and educate ourselves as to the true facts and considerations bearing on a successful energy program consistent with economic laws and reality." WA 22 billion yearly budget divided by 5.7 million population = $3900 tax per capita **CA 55 billion yearly budget divided by 30 million population = $1833 tax per capita