And still others went ahead and stayed for the Ph.D. program, where we learned how to teach to faux-intellectuals.
Let's look at the wierdest of these points, but without the bold.
Why did California have price controls in the first place?
Not because private producers existed as a monopoly in a state of nature, but because officials thought that efficiency mandated a single supplier and thus created the monopoly/regulatory system (although the Chicago school argues that regulators long ago became 'captured' by these utilities). This 'natural monopoly' argument received a fatal shot below the waterline with Harold Demsetz's 1968 Journal of Law and Economics article 'Why regulate utilities?'. He pointed out that, while the wires should be owned by one company, there was no reason not to have multiply producers. Hence we have one set of phone wires, but multiple long-distance carriers, local carriers, ISPs, etc.
So what's the real source of the problem?
PG&E, etc. agreed to a political compromise in which supply prices could rise arbitrarily, but prices to consumer could not. Further, long-run contracts were forbidden, forcing power to be purchased on the spot market. PG&E gambled that the prices it would face would remain low, even though new power plants would take years to come on line.
Wasn't it incredibly naive...
Libertarians, free-market types and so on could have predicted failure from this type of politcal compromise from the first day. In fact, one did. Ayn Rand has a nice 'blackout' scene in Atlas Shrugged.
So what happened then?
What actually happened was that a cold winter throughout the country pushed up spot prices. California consumers, facing no price signal, didn't cut voluntarily cut consumption. PG&E lost money on every kW, but couldn't make it up in volume.
Since few power plants burn oil for electricity, changes in oil prices had little effect.
So, in a classic example...
I don't even understand this statement. Losses are clearly being incured by a private company, which is why it's going bankrupt. Talk of stock repurchases, etc. are irrelevent because they the inevitable to happen a few days sooner than it would have.
So whose fault was it?
The fault lies with consumer groups for forcing a price cap on consumers and not allowing for long-run contracting, and politicians and PG&E for agreeing. There are incentives to produce new plants, but California NIMBY laws make it a long, slow process to bring new plants online.
I'm all for privacy, but people are being way too paranoid. The NY Times editorial mentions an article in the Washington Post, and it's worth reading. As I mentioned elsewhere in this discussion, the article points out that this is wanted for statistical modelling, not snooping. Congress already has the IRS data through the Joint Committee on Taxation, so the real purpose is probably to obtain the demographic information to reduce the standard error of various budget estimates. This is a BUDGET office, not the NSA.
I completely disagree. As reported in the Washington Post, CBO wants this for statistical modeling. I've worked for Federal statistical agencies for years and this is entirely consistent with everything I've seen. The tax data doesn't even list your name, just your SSN. The whole point of linking is to get the demographic information missing from the IRS data (which Congress already has through the Joint Committee on Taxation). I'm certain that the only thing they care about is the statistical analysis. I mean come on, it's a BUDGET office, not the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc.
Actually, I'm fascinated by the implications of the fact that no Slashdot reader posted the story when it showed up Tuesday night
in the Style section of the Washington Post, but "zillions" did when it showed up later on a Microsoft website
Slashdot Mirror
Let's look at the wierdest of these points, but without the bold.
Why did California have price controls in the first place?
Not because private producers existed as a monopoly in a state of nature, but because officials thought that efficiency mandated a single supplier and thus created the monopoly/regulatory system (although the Chicago school argues that regulators long ago became 'captured' by these utilities). This 'natural monopoly' argument received a fatal shot below the waterline with Harold Demsetz's 1968 Journal of Law and Economics article 'Why regulate utilities?'. He pointed out that, while the wires should be owned by one company, there was no reason not to have multiply producers. Hence we have one set of phone wires, but multiple long-distance carriers, local carriers, ISPs, etc.
So what's the real source of the problem?
PG&E, etc. agreed to a political compromise in which supply prices could rise arbitrarily, but prices to consumer could not. Further, long-run contracts were forbidden, forcing power to be purchased on the spot market. PG&E gambled that the prices it would face would remain low, even though new power plants would take years to come on line.
Wasn't it incredibly naive...
Libertarians, free-market types and so on could have predicted failure from this type of politcal compromise from the first day. In fact, one did. Ayn Rand has a nice 'blackout' scene in Atlas Shrugged.
So what happened then?
What actually happened was that a cold winter throughout the country pushed up spot prices. California consumers, facing no price signal, didn't cut voluntarily cut consumption. PG&E lost money on every kW, but couldn't make it up in volume.
Since few power plants burn oil for electricity, changes in oil prices had little effect.
So, in a classic example...
I don't even understand this statement. Losses are clearly being incured by a private company, which is why it's going bankrupt. Talk of stock repurchases, etc. are irrelevent because they the inevitable to happen a few days sooner than it would have.
So whose fault was it?
The fault lies with consumer groups for forcing a price cap on consumers and not allowing for long-run contracting, and politicians and PG&E for agreeing. There are incentives to produce new plants, but California NIMBY laws make it a long, slow process to bring new plants online.
I'm all for privacy, but people are being way too paranoid. The NY Times editorial mentions an article in the Washington Post, and it's worth reading. As I mentioned elsewhere in this discussion, the article points out that this is wanted for statistical modelling, not snooping. Congress already has the IRS data through the Joint Committee on Taxation, so the real purpose is probably to obtain the demographic information to reduce the standard error of various budget estimates. This is a BUDGET office, not the NSA.
I completely disagree. As reported in the Washington Post, CBO wants this for statistical modeling. I've worked for Federal statistical agencies for years and this is entirely consistent with everything I've seen. The tax data doesn't even list your name, just your SSN. The whole point of linking is to get the demographic information missing from the IRS data (which Congress already has through the Joint Committee on Taxation). I'm certain that the only thing they care about is the statistical analysis. I mean come on, it's a BUDGET office, not the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc.
Actually, I'm fascinated by the implications of the fact that no Slashdot reader posted the story when it showed up Tuesday night in the Style section of the Washington Post, but "zillions" did when it showed up later on a Microsoft website
Now that is just silly. I'd just buy one and teach it to use my CueCat.