Re: Road to Hydrogen Cars may not be so clean
From: Bill Ward (bwardREMOVE_at_ix.netcom.com)
Date: 12/21/04
- Next message: Tim O'Flaherty: "Re: Road to Hydrogen Cars may not be so clean"
- Previous message: bw: "Re: Road to Hydrogen Cars may not be so clean"
- In reply to: Roland PJ: "Re: Road to Hydrogen Cars may not be so clean"
- Next in thread: Trevor S: "Re: Road to Hydrogen Cars may not be so clean"
- Reply: Trevor S: "Re: Road to Hydrogen Cars may not be so clean"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 08:00:51 GMT
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 04:19:16 -0800, Roland PJ
<roland@rolandpj.com> wrote:
>Bill Ward wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 00:15:34 -0800, Roland PJ
>> <roland@rolandpj.com> wrote:
>
>>>Bill Ward wrote:
>
>>>Bill, while you're here, why is 'liberal' such a bad word in America?
>>>
>>>It means (literally) someone who desires freedom.
>>
>>>How do you define 'liberal'?
>>
>>
>> Here in the USA, it has become associated with the left end
>> of the political spectrum.
>
>I don't think that the left really exists in the USA. Communism? Well
>that's a bad thing isn't it? McCarthy, went maybe too far, but he was on
>to a good thing. Anyway, the disintegration of the USSR in the Reagan
>years is proof that capitalism is better.
Capitalism is just the system that naturally arises when
people are able to trade freely without force or fraud. I
like the example of the ordinary marketplace - we call them
"swap meets", or "flea markets". A willing seller, a
willing buyer, and two happier people when the deal is done.
I believe that's when wealth is created.
>
>> I use the term to mean those who
>> prefer government control over free markets, many because
>> they sincerely believe that the masses cannot survive
>> without government assistance and interference.
>
>OK, you're a pure free-market proponent.
>
>What about your water? What about your electricity? Both are transported
>through government funded channels. Water pipes and electric lines were
>built by your parents' money (through taxes, of course).
Actually, here in California, nearly all power companies are
privately owned by stockholders, but regulated "in the
public interest" by the Public Utilities Commission.
Construction and maintenance costs come from ratepayers and
private bondholders, not taxes. Water systems are usually
operated by locally elected water boards, and are funded by
water usage rates, technically not taxes..
>
>Privatise those channels and you create an immediate monopoly situation.
>No company can build alternate water pipes. No company can build a
>second set of HV power lines.
>
>Put those supply chains in private hands, and you have the classic
>recipe for disaster. Witness the UK rail situation. Blackouts in Cali.
Only a government can legally enforce a monopoly, as only it
has the right to initiate the use of force.
The California blackouts happened when an attempt to
"privatize" the electrical system got screwed up. The idea
was to allow users to select the source of their energy from
competing suppliers, letting the state manage the
distribution, but the regulations capped the price,
effectively forcing the companies to sell power below cost.
And there were loopholes galore that allowed the companies
to profitably game the system.
When companies started going bankrupt and unable to supply
power, our "liberal" governor Gray Davis panicked and locked
the state into long term power commitments at the spot rate.
We're still paying off tens of billions in bonds, with much
higher rates than before. (.US $0.15/KWh).
My view is that the system was deregulated improperly, not
that deregulation per se won't work. Telephones were
deregulated very sucessfully when cellphones came on the
scene. Long distance rates dropped dramatically. I can now
get unlimited (in the US) access for about $40/mo flat rate,
way below the previous cost, because of competition..
>
>>
>> I usually do not engage in argument with them, as it seems
>> to be a matter of faith, as is my belief in the power of
>> individuals. To me it's rather pointless, like arguing
>> about religion, I'm more likely to lose friends than make
>> converts.
>>
>
>I'm a huge believer in the individual (Mainly me). But we have to get
>on. The model of self doesn't scale (in other words, you might be good,
>but you will reach your limit in society).
I agree with the first part, but I'd take it further. I
want everybody to be free to reach their maximum potential,
for purely selfish reasons. First, free individuals create
more. Examples abound - Bell, Edison, Ford, the Wright
brothers, Bill Gates, Linus Torvalds, Burt Rutan, etc, etc.
No matter how much they earned, it could never even approach
the benefits we all recieve because of their work.
Secondly, free people are less likely to start a war. You
don't bomb customers.
I'm not clear on exactly what you mean about "scaling"
relative to individuals. I regard society more as a
self-assembling system of individuals. Eliminate force and
fraud and let natural feedback loops (price, etc.) provide
stability. People are pretty smart. .
I always appreciate your comments.
Regards,
Bill Ward
- Next message: Tim O'Flaherty: "Re: Road to Hydrogen Cars may not be so clean"
- Previous message: bw: "Re: Road to Hydrogen Cars may not be so clean"
- In reply to: Roland PJ: "Re: Road to Hydrogen Cars may not be so clean"
- Next in thread: Trevor S: "Re: Road to Hydrogen Cars may not be so clean"
- Reply: Trevor S: "Re: Road to Hydrogen Cars may not be so clean"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
