Back to Public Power?

[Phi for All]

In recent years, privatization of prisons has come under scrutiny as a failed experiment. Similarly, many municipalities are now rethinking their decision to sell public utilities to private energy companies. Reagan-era federal government downsizing in the 80s led to selloff of public energy assets. Retail costs have soared over the years and continue to go up, while wholesale energy is getting cheaper and cheaper. We were promised cost-effectiveness due to large-market efficiencies, and it seems that has happened but hasn't been passed along to the consumer. Many consumers want to go back to public ownership and control, especially now that the big energy corporations are denying climate science.

 

What do you think? Is energy a commodity for market concerns, or in modern times is it an essential service that should be in the public's control?

[StringJunky]

Energy is a bit of a grey one because it is a quantifiable and monetisable product and such probably left to market forces BUT a country's correct functioning is slave to it's availability; everything depends on it.

Edited January 20, 2017 by StringJunky

[RiceAWay]

In recent years, privatization of prisons has come under scrutiny as a failed experiment. Similarly, many municipalities are now rethinking their decision to sell public utilities to private energy companies. Reagan-era federal government downsizing in the 80s led to selloff of public energy assets. Retail costs have soared over the years and continue to go up, while wholesale energy is getting cheaper and cheaper. We were promised cost-effectiveness due to large-market efficiencies, and it seems that has happened but hasn't been passed along to the consumer. Many consumers want to go back to public ownership and control, especially now that the big energy corporations are denying climate science.

 

What do you think? Is energy a commodity for market concerns, or in modern times is it an essential service that should be in the public's control?

 

The numbers of prisoners in Federal Prisons are relatively small through pinning down the exact amount is difficult. Though it appears to be about 10% of the numbers of state, local and juvenile prisoners held in states. Privatization of Federal Prisons is probably a good idea though one has to question about states trying to save money and in the process losing view of the fact that prisoners are better off being rehabilitated. Most of these people under the Obama regime could never find another job since they had a record no matter that they had rehabilitated themselves.

[swansont]

The numbers of prisoners in Federal Prisons are relatively small through pinning down the exact amount is difficult. Though it appears to be about 10% of the numbers of state, local and juvenile prisoners held in states. Privatization of Federal Prisons is probably a good idea though one has to question about states trying to save money and in the process losing view of the fact that prisoners are better off being rehabilitated. Most of these people under the Obama regime could never find another job since they had a record no matter that they had rehabilitated themselves.

!

Moderator Note

Please stay on topic. Power.

[Phi for All]

 

The numbers of prisoners in Federal Prisons are relatively small through pinning down the exact amount is difficult. Though it appears to be about 10% of the numbers of state, local and juvenile prisoners held in states. Privatization of Federal Prisons is probably a good idea though one has to question about states trying to save money and in the process losing view of the fact that prisoners are better off being rehabilitated. Most of these people under the Obama regime could never find another job since they had a record no matter that they had rehabilitated themselves.

 

Yeah, we know how you feel about Obama. But the DOJ released a report last year. Private prisons don't work, and they make the system more dangerous and cost far too much. It's dumb to use a capitalist growth business model on something you don't want to grow (like prisons).

 

And when we're talking about the nation's power (which we really are - check the title), the lure of profits are too great. So much of what we do is based on our electricity, and on keeping our buildings warm. Power is so intrinsic to modern daily life that, like walking on the sidewalk or driving on the roads, it's something we should fund ourselves so we're not also having to pay profit to a private company.

 

I would also argue that a private power company always does what's in its own best interest, which may include actions that aren't in the consumer's best interest. For some reason, during deregulation under Reagan and Clinton, the doors were purposely left wide open for scams and predatory business practices. In some states, it's possible for one private energy provider to change your service if they have your account number (which they typically get by claiming to be from your current provider).

[Ten oz]

Whether it is using the military in conflicts to protect fossil fuel positions, giving up public lands for Nuclear waste disposal, the use of eminent domain to wrestle away land, the money spend on infastructure, and etc I think it is fair to say that the public is already floating many of the associated bills. Considering the amount of public resources involved I think it should be treated asan essential service that should be in the public's control. The way it currently stands the public is being made to pay for it twice; through their tax dollars and then again when they pay their/our utility bill.

[Delta1212]

 

Yeah, we know how you feel about Obama. But the DOJ released a report last year. Private prisons don't work, and they make the system more dangerous and cost far too much. It's dumb to use a capitalist growth business model on something you don't want to grow (like prisons).

 

And when we're talking about the nation's power (which we really are - check the title), the lure of profits are too great. So much of what we do is based on our electricity, and on keeping our buildings warm. Power is so intrinsic to modern daily life that, like walking on the sidewalk or driving on the roads, it's something we should fund ourselves so we're not also having to pay profit to a private company.

 

I would also argue that a private power company always does what's in its own best interest, which may include actions that aren't in the consumer's best interest. For some reason, during deregulation under Reagan and Clinton, the doors were purposely left wide open for scams and predatory business practices. In some states, it's possible for one private energy provider to change your service if they have your account number (which they typically get by claiming to be from your current provider).

The town I grew up in in New Jersey had it's own power, rather than being supplied by PSE&G. It's in New Jersey. During Sandy, the power went out for about two minutes. The following week, you could tell exactly where the borders of the town were by where the lights went out.

 

That was pretty typical, and the difference was noticeable between the frequency and duration of power outages at my house and at those of my friends in other towns, although I didn't realize why when I was a kid.

 

Needless to say, my experience with having electric as a public utility has been pretty positive.

[dimreepr]

In recent years, privatization of prisons has come under scrutiny as a failed experiment. Similarly, many municipalities are now rethinking their decision to sell public utilities to private energy companies. Reagan-era federal government downsizing in the 80s led to selloff of public energy assets. Retail costs have soared over the years and continue to go up, while wholesale energy is getting cheaper and cheaper. We were promised cost-effectiveness due to large-market efficiencies, and it seems that has happened but hasn't been passed along to the consumer. Many consumers want to go back to public ownership and control, especially now that the big energy corporations are denying climate science.

 

What do you think? Is energy a commodity for market concerns, or in modern times is it an essential service that should be in the public's control?

 

 

Whenever profit is put above people, it's always short term thinking (democracies Achilles heel); it never considers the people will one day storm the Bastille.

[ecoli]

I don't think profits are evil. Making money is a great incentivizer that has resulting in much public good, and markets based around private capital greases the wheels of this economic engine. However, what is evil is the socialization of the losses resulting from private risk. If 'last mile' supply of energy is too risky for private companies to allow competition (ie local/state governments allowing de facto monopolies on electrical and other utilities) than the service shouldn't be operated by private companies.

 

I'm of the somewhat extreme position that subsidized companies should be cut loose or acquired by the public.

[Phi for All]

Whenever profit is put above people, it's always short term thinking (democracies Achilles heel); it never considers the people will one day storm the Bastille.

 

Capitalism is like planting kudzu. If you need to cover a large area with growth, and provide an anchor to protect against erosion, you couldn't pick a better plant. But if you don't carefully tend it (regulate it, tax it), it takes over everything.

I don't think profits are evil. Making money is a great incentivizer that has resulting in much public good, and markets based around private capital greases the wheels of this economic engine. However, what is evil is the socialization of the losses resulting from private risk. If 'last mile' supply of energy is too risky for private companies to allow competition (ie local/state governments allowing de facto monopolies on electrical and other utilities) than the service shouldn't be operated by private companies.

 

I'm of the somewhat extreme position that subsidized companies should be cut loose or acquired by the public.

 

This is a no strawman zone. Nobody said profits were evil. The idea is that profit has its place, mainly in areas where it's OK for profit to be the priority. But in many areas, we're better served as individuals and as a country by focusing on what we're funding, and doing so with public monies.

 

I completely agree with cutting off subsidies for successful businesses (or businesses that would fail if we stopped propping them up). It shows how messed up we've let matters get when, for instance, the US subsidizes the sugar industry which purposely charges us the highest prices in the world. And in energy, profit has been growing while the consumer gets charged more heavily. That's not market economics, because they aren't fairly competing with each other.

[dimreepr]

 

Capitalism is like planting kudzu. If you need to cover a large area with growth, and provide an anchor to protect against erosion, you couldn't pick a better plant. But if you don't carefully tend it (regulate it, tax it), it takes over everything.

 

Indeed, most people can stand a hard life, just not when their noses are rubbed in the shit of the wealthy.

 

Edit, meant to include this; instead of the grindstone.

Edited January 23, 2017 by dimreepr

[ecoli]

This is a no strawman zone. Nobody said profits were evil. The idea is that profit has its place, mainly in areas where it's OK for profit to be the priority. But in many areas, we're better served as individuals and as a country by focusing on what we're funding, and doing so with public monies.

 

I know... I wasn't responding to anyone in particular, just stating a de novo opinion.

[Phi for All]

Indeed, most people can stand a hard life, just not when their noses are rubbed in the shit of the wealthy.

 

And it's not "the wealthy", or even wealth that's the root problem here. I know people with extreme wealth who understand about pulling their own weight, who know that the job worker is just as important as the job creator, who know that happy employees who make a fair wage stay longer, and cost the same as unhappy employees making crap but turning over constantly.

 

It's the people who think cheating on taxes is smart. It's the ones who want everyone to pay for airports, but don't think they should have to pay for public pools/schools because they never use them. It's the ones who want two sets of everything so they don't have to mingle with their lessers that cause good social programs to fail.

 

Going back to public power would also put a halt to the practice of profiting from lobbying. Right now, energy companies can spend a few million on lobbying efforts that give them billions in incentives. Another area where we're subsidizing successful companies at taxpayer expense.

[dimreepr]

 

And it's not "the wealthy", or even wealth that's the root problem here. I know people with extreme wealth who understand about pulling their own weight, who know that the job worker is just as important as the job creator, who know that happy employees who make a fair wage stay longer, and cost the same as unhappy employees making crap but turning over constantly.

 

It's the people who think cheating on taxes is smart. It's the ones who want everyone to pay for airports, but don't think they should have to pay for public pools/schools because they never use them. It's the ones who want two sets of everything so they don't have to mingle with their lessers that cause good social programs to fail.

 

Going back to public power would also put a halt to the practice of profiting from lobbying. Right now, energy companies can spend a few million on lobbying efforts that give them billions in incentives. Another area where we're subsidizing successful companies at taxpayer expense.

 

 

The wealthy philanthropist is to be admired and possibly steered the UK away from revolution in the Victorian era.

Edited January 23, 2017 by dimreepr

[Ten oz]

 

I completely agree with cutting off subsidies for successful businesses (or businesses that would fail if we stopped propping them up). It shows how messed up we've let matters get when, for instance, the US subsidizes the sugar industry which purposely charges us the highest prices in the world. And in energy, profit has been growing while the consumer gets charged more heavily. That's not market economics, because they aren't fairly competing with each other.

The majority of energy companies (profit and output not total number of independents) receive various forms of subsidies. Ended subsidies to profitable energy companies would basically force public control as the private sector would not long consider it worthwhile without the subsidies. A perfect example of this public/private relationship is Rex Tillerson nominee for Sec. of State. Working for Exxon is considered qualification for the State Dept..