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: Peter O'Brien who wrote (146812)	5/21/2001 2:43:19 PM
From: ThirdEye	Respond to of 769670

I could see the rationale for price supports in selected industries that could arguably be called vital--as part of a comprehensive energy policy. But I imagine this idea would give you pause since it represents a partial nationalization of utilities, does it not? While I'm not generally in favor of price supports, especially for tobacco, the agriculture lobby seems to have convinced legislators for many years that they should be protected from certain economic conditions--and this is while they slowly grind the family farm into extinction, btw--and so it might be with utilities. But, if such a measure was ever adopted, we would not have to stand by and watch companies like PG&E hand out millions in bonuses to their middle managers just before they declared bankruptcy, or transfer hundreds of millions to the parent corp. also just before declaring. One more thing. Would a stockholder of a public company be interested in what amounts to a brake on potential revenues for the sake of a similar guarantee against unforeseen losses?