you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -20 points 6 months ago* (14 children)

So government can spend the investment on schools and hospitals instead. (In the civilised world, obviously not America)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 6 months ago (13 children)

    This has little to do with where you're from. It's just neoliberal rhetoric. Having a public energy sector would be beneficial in the long run and would reduce what we have to pay for it. Right now the earnings are privatized in most places.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    My area privatized the publicly owned electricity provider and since prices started going up they then had to implement rebates to bring bills down a bit. Effectively a roundabout way to move public funds from paying for the actual infrastructure into subsidizing corporate profits instead

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Exactly. Privatize the profits and socialize the costs. What a brilliant system. Unfortunately it benefits only a small handful while everyone else picks up the tab.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    Having a public energy sector would be beneficial in the long run and would reduce what we have to pay for it.

    A well-run public energy sector, certainly. Idk what we'd end up with given the most recent rotation of people in charge.

    The state does have an incentive to keep consumer costs low in a way the private sector does not. But state officials also traditionally do a bad job of maintaining and expanding utilities to match consumer demand.

    The end result tends to be low end user prices at the expense of reliable distribution and surplus volume.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -11 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (6 children)

    It's not rhetoric. It's economics 101. Opportunity cost.

    A mixture of private and public is best. The Nordics show market socialism done well.

    Edit. A mixture allows more spend on more things. Govts can't sell infinite debt

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Thanks professor. Do you know private debt and state debt are hardly the same? Have you considered the opportunity cost of not having public energy, therefore losing potential "earnings" to private investors? Or are you telling me next that rich people are a necessity as well? Is trickle-down part of this course or do I have to wait for 201?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)

    Opportunity cost. If you spend money on one thing, it means you can't spend it on something else

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Of course. So providing profits to utility “owners” is money stolen from the people that could be more productively used literally anywhere else.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

    The profits are in return for investment that the government couldn't otherwise do. What's the alternative?

    Also, the private company employs people, they pay income tax.

  • source
  • parent