How long will it take to have an effect on the economy throughout America?

http://www.newsday.com/ap/national/ap764.htm

-- Anonymous, January 19, 2001

Answers

Starting to figure it out eh Pam.

Most everybody loves the idea of California doing some suffering. Hell, snow ain't a problem out here and that's a sin by itself. Plus there's all that Hollywood stuff and then of course the fags and Mexicans. You heard about them right? A more worthy target for misery you couldn't conjure.

Seventh largest economy in the world is on the brink and unless you can carve natural gas prices by 50% or so get ready for the shudder coming to your town. I know. This is just old doomer shit. Nevermind.

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2001

Carlos--

Just because I'm from Pennsylvania doesn't mean I'm dumb. [g] Although until yesterday I had no idea of the sheer size of California's economy. It's larger than all but 5 _countries_ in the world.

Most people here have figured out that I'm one of those "60's bleeding-heart liberals". I just want to "help" people. But....No snow, you say-----just how bad can it be? [g]

I'm surprised there hasn't been more talk here about the implications of the power crisis in California. Maybe after Y2k and then the interesting election/selection no one is ready for the next "crisis" yet. It comes at an awkward time what with the changing of the Presidents today.

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2001

Carlos,

Not all of us are *laughing* at California. I take no pleasure in the suffering of others. But there *is* a remarkable irony here that the press is only now -- FINALLY -- starting to twig to.

California has led the nation in environmental activism for decades, and now, at least in part, they are reaping one of the crops that they've sown.

The immediate cause of the crisis is deregulation of the wholesale power sector while still requiring that utilities cap the price charged to customers. This lunacy is just another case of wishful thinking by liberal politicians (who didn't want to anger end-users -- read: VOTERS) failing to grasp basic economic realities (ie, the fact that you cannot force businesses to accept higher expenses without letting them pass those expenses on to consumer/voters).

(An aside: in the same way, liberal politicians insist on taxing the snot out of those who are successful, which hampers growth. No society in history has ever taxed itself into prosperity, and yet, liberals continue to believe that, not only is this possible, it is a *requirement* of "fair" economics.)

But the root cause is the fact that the United States, in general, hasn't built enough new capacity to meet growing demand. California is simply the first example. Their politicians didn't want to anger voters by relaxing restrictions on new plants, so they *hoped* that, by creating this wierd scheme, they could somehow magically be able to buy power from other states (hey, the politicians in THESE states could worry about THEIR voters!).

Kind of like, "we'll dump the garbage in YOUR yard; that way, we look good. YOU can deal with the mess.")

The primary reason for the national shortfall in gen capacity is the high cost of new plant -- due, in great measure, to radical environmentalism and liberal policies in general.

Those of us who have friends in the power industry have seen this coming for some time. Back when I was in NC, such a friend told me that Carolina Power and Light really needed to build a new nuke to meet projected demands, but wouldn't do it. Added to the already high cost were the expenses of endless court challenges, hearings, Byzantine security and safety measures, astronomical insurance premiums, etc., etc.

They decided not to build the plant.

At some point, folly comes home to roost. THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH. These same friends have told me that, yes, there NEEDED to be some restriction and regulation; Three Mile Island resulted from lax procedures. But we've gone too far the other way.

Here's the key point. At present, the entire country is using about 98% of capacity. In the next few years, unless we embark on a crash program to build new generating capacity, the ENTIRE COUNTRY is going to experience rolling blackouts.

The question is, will the environmentalists let us do this? They're already hammering Bush about seeking new petrol in Alaska -- in SPITE of the fact that we NEED to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, BADLY.

Food for thought.

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2001

Stephen--

If there were a good, simple solution both liberals and conservatives would embrace it.

From what I've read nuclear plants are designed for short lifespans and create pollution that lasts essentially forever. Yet, they may be the only solution available. What a choice.

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2001

Poole:

I believe that the policy was originally developed under a Republican govenor [remember sweet Pete]. But that is beside the point aside from your name calling. The problem is that it was a compromise. Everyone got everything they wanted. High prices for the producers and low prices for consumers.

I found it amusing when I first read the "deregulation guidelines" way back when. But then, I don't live in California so I can afford to be amused. My power provider has excess capacity [coal fired] and is making money; which will be returned to me since they aren't permitted to keep a profit.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2001

Pam,

There never have been "obvious" answers, because every *workable* answer requires a compromise -- and almost by definition, it's impossible to get everyone to agree on a compromise. At best, you get a working majority (with the opposition on either side screaming dire warnings and imprecations at anyone who will listen[g]).

Here's the important part. Many of the leaders of the environmental and anti-nuke movements are folks who are clearly aligned with the left. That's not just right-wing paranoia; that's a demonstrable fact -- from Helen Caldicott to Tom Hayden to you name it. Many of these people were leftist radicals in the 60's.

Some people have wondered why they gravitated to the environmental movement. Ah, there was a reason for that. :)

These people are not stupid. They KNEW, years ago, that this crisis was coming. Anyone with a pocket calculator and a set of growth statistics could see it; it was a no-brainer. They were hoping to capitalize (pun intended[g]) on same. :)

The power companies saw it coming, too. THEY said, "fine, one day, people will discover that their blowdryers and traffic lights don't work and they'll start screaming for relaxed environmental regulations."

So ... we basically had two sets of gamblers here, each hoping that the public would respond favorably to their plan and vision.

The left blames CAPITALISM in general for all of our Big Problems -- from the poor to waste and pollution. Evil, wicked capitalism. For example, they argue that we should go to alternative sources of energy. The problem is, they're not economically viable.

When you point this out, THAT's when the leftist sighs wistfully: "you know, under a government controlled economy, this wouldn't be an issue; instead of doing things just because they'll turn a profit, we could do what's best for everyone ... . .."

See? :)

(They never finish the sentence. What they REALLY mean is, "we do what's best for everyone AS WE SEE IT, ACCORDING TO OUR IDEOLOGY.")

I'll close with two predictions.

1. Those who hate Bush at present will one day (however grudgingly[g]) admit that his election was probably one of the most fortuitous events of the new millenium, because he is NOT going to continue the energy policy set in place by Clinton (and especially Clinton's shadow support from the left), which are largely responsible for the current mess. Gore intended to continue those policies.

This, as much as anything else, is a *KEY* reason why I voted for Bush.

2. I'll bet that you really aren't a "liberal." You probably call yourself that primarily because you don't want to be associated with those who call themselves "conservative," and THAT primarily because of their *social* policies. Am I right? :)

Here's the second prediction. I don't know if YOU are ready to go there yet, but in the coming years, more and more thoughtful Americans are going to embrace Libertarianism -- which is basically sound conservative economic policy coupled with liberal social policy.

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2001

Z,

This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. If you insist on assigning labels to it, call it "conservative vs. leftist."

The policy itself is to blame. It was created by politicians more interested in reelection and not "rocking the boat" than in sound policy. Further, it WAS accepted by the left (because it would keep the Evil Power Plants out of California, by gawd, and that's all that mattered).

Likewise, someone will surely point out here, in answer to my comment above to Pam, that a Republican administration set the original policies that have caused the growing national crisis overall. We score political points while Rome burns; again, it's IRRELEVANT.

What counts is what politicians did/will do ONCE THE PROBLEM BECOMES APPARENT. Clinton was made aware of the problem as early as 1994-5. HE chose to ignore it.

I'll give Clinton credit because he at least acknowledged that something had to be done about Social Security, or it's going to go bankrupt. He also acknowledged that welfare HAD to be reformed; it, too, was in a fiscal mess.

But in energy policy, he did NOTHING to change the status quo, because his last bastions of support on the left were the pro-choice and environmentalist crowds; he couldn't afford (politically) to offend either.

Bush has promised to vigorously seek out new sources of petroleum, coal, natural gas and hydro power. You should thank him for that.

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2001

Z,

One other thing. Pete Wilson was a Republican, but he was NOT a conservative. Nice try. :)

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2001

Z, take a hike on this one. You conviently forget the overwhelmingly liberal legilative branch here in Cali. They believe in magic. Wilson didn't. What a concept!

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2001

Carlos:

Don't buy the conservative, liberal thing; no matter what you say. The good conservative governor in Montana has taken the equivalent of a good 2nd world nation and converted it into a third world nation. And he did it quick.

Wilson, said he was a conservative; I take people at their word. I don't try to redefine them when they do something that I don't like.

Best Wishes,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2001

Wilson was a conservative but not a fool. He vetoed a bunch senseless crap but still, he was elected because his opponent (I forget his name) was a complete dork. The legislature runs this state which Gray (don't you just love my hair) Davis is fast discovering.

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2001

"Wilson was ... elected because his opponent (I forget his name) was a complete dork."

Al Smith. He was the first Catholic to run for President as a major party candidate. The Republicans made full use of this fact to appeal to the KKK-anti-Catholic vote.

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2001

Nice you could stop by.

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2001

Carlos,

It annoys me when people try to tell me about my local politicians, so I won't try to do it to you. If you say Wilson was a conservative, then I have to accept it. After all, you were there. :)

The important thing here, of course, isn't who started the policy (though I agree with you that the legislature should get far more blame than the governor). It's whether or not we do something to change that policy that it has become obvious that it's not working.

(As is the case now in California.)

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2001

Interesting Datum from Public Citizen, although I don't accept their interpretation just yet. Here. Have to see if I can find more before I completely accept the interpretation, though. Work to Rule's usually one of the reason deregulated systems fail, though. I suspect obvious holes involve maintenance cycles.

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2001

Mike,

I regard that article with some skepticism. I'm sure there's something to that, but note that it contains a lot of ISH (Inference, Supposition and "Hmmmm") about those plants that have been taken off line. They very likely were taken down for maintenance, or perhaps even because of a lack of fuel (a bankrupt utility has trouble buying coal and petrol, too[g]).

There *may* be some truth to their allegations; of course this needs to be checked. But it's also possible that this is going to be the response from environmentalists -- that there IS no "power crisis," so we don't really need to build any new plants.

I suspect the whole truth, as usual, lies somewhere in the foggy middle.

-- Anonymous, January 22, 2001

A bad thing Pete Wilson did: He approved the motorcycle helmet law for California.

A good thing he did: A homosexual group was throwing oranges at him during one of his speaches, and instead of running away stood there and spoke. I remember he even caught one in one hand. I liked that in him, at least he stood there and took it.

Frank

-- Anonymous, January 22, 2001

Change "speaches" to "speeches". Too near dinner-time I guess.

Frank

-- Anonymous, January 22, 2001

Frank,

If they had been throwing peaches during his speaches, you would've been called "witty." Not your fault they picked the wrong fruit.

Now: orange you glad I pointed this out? :)

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001

Poole:

I am curious as to the basis of your argument that lifting regulations will solve the energy crisis in California. Can you cite specific regulations that could be lifted without environmental impact or an increase in pollution? Why were the regulations put in effect in the first place? Were environmental impact studies done? Do you have cites to those studies? I do not expect you to do the research for me-just asking if you have it handy.

Do you think the energy suppliers to California are making a just profit? Do you at all think they are exercising environmental usery with the prices they are charging? Banks are regulated as far as what the highest percentage interest they can charge on things like credit cards. Do you disagree with regs like that? Do you not think there should be caps on what the wholesale suppliers charge?

Call me crazy, but I would rather spend one night a week reading by candlelight than mortgage the future of my environment, ruining it for my children, and my children's children, and perhaps shortening my own life. Do you realize how much energy would be saved if each one of us actually shut off the lights when we left a room? I myself follow behind my wife to do this. How many people leave computers on in their house when they go out for a few hours? Why is the clamor coming for more drilling, more drilling, and not a louder cry for conservation? I remember no christmas lights in the early seventies, and I saw this year more and more elaborate displays. We waste more energy in this country, and because we cannot seem to change this behavior, the solution is to relax regulations and drill in the pristine wilderness.

I refuse to believe that easing environmental restrictions and drilling in pristine wilderness are the solution. There should be a massive public relations campaign to conserve if we are in the dire straits some thing we are in.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001

Stephen,

:-)

Frank

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001

Whoa, GrayMatter!

I am curious as to the basis of your argument that lifting regulations will solve the energy crisis in California. Can you cite specific regulations that could be lifted without environmental impact or an increase in pollution?

Well, I was getting ready to write an impassioned response when I saw that I did indeed use the word "regulation." It's my own durned fault, then. I should have explained myself mo' betta.

The regulations to prevent pollution really aren't the issue and I shouldn't have used that word. What I'm talking about is the general, almost religious, belief on the part of radical envirowhackos (yeah, that's a perjorative, but it's kinder than "Junk Science Infected Morons[g]") that ANY new power plant -- particularly the nukes -- are de facto threats to the environment.

I hope I've clarified that. Sensible regulations to prevent power plants from oozing radiactive sludge don't bother me. (Tongue firmly in cheek, there.[g]) But the old envirowhacko's game of, "tie 'em up in court and government hearings, tell lies, scream, git nekkid, chain ourselves to the bulldozers and in general, make nusiances of ourselves" to prevent any new power plant from being built is another matter. THAT'S what I was addressing.

That's not an exaggeration. They're scared of the nukes by default; they hate hydro plants because you usually have to make a big dam (which creates a big lake) to build one; they hate petro-powered plants for OTHER reasons; and so on.

It wouldn't matter if these wackos hadn't gotten the attention of prominent people (typically Hollywood airheads with more money than sense) to FUND their activities. A small group of radicals with a huge purse can cause ENDLESS grief to a utility planning to build a new power plant.

THAT'S what we need to address. Provided we can make the plants safe, we should streamline the process, tell the enviro-morons to shut up and BUILD the darn things.

Do you think the energy suppliers to California are making a just profit? ... [snip]

My opinion on regulation is that it either must be all-inclusive, or not done at all. If you regulate all aspects of the utilities market, that's one thing. But when you do what California did (deregulate the wholesale sector while still capping the rates charged to end-users), you get precisely what's happening now: shortages.

We waste more energy in this country, and because we cannot seem to change this behavior, the solution is to relax regulations and drill in the pristine wilderness.

This isn't an "either-or," toggle-switch, binary thing, FS. We can drill in at least some parts of the "pristine wilderness" without causing undue harm to the environment. Yes, we will have to closely monitor such drilling, and that will take ... REGULATIONS. :)

The problem is, as usual, the radical envirowhackos refuse to believe that this is even possible. They won't even entertain the notion. Their attitude is, "don't even try it, don't even think about it."

There should be a massive public relations campaign to conserve if we are in the dire straits some thing we are in.

That will buy us some time, nothing more. As we continue to grow and expand, we will need more energy, period.

If poor Jimmy Carter made a mistake (ignoring Iran, of course[g]), it was that he permitted the radical envirowhackos to infest his administration. They convinced him of the extreme vision of just what you're talking about: that we needed to tighten our belts, conserve, make do with less. A very bleak vision of the future had ol' James Earl.

The American people voted him out of office. I choose to be optimistic about the future. We will find new energy sources, including alternative sources, because the market will create demand. But killing the economy and hurling us into a depression just to save the spotted owl and snail darter will only kill BOTH in the long run.

(If nothing else, savages will kill and eat them when the power goes out.[g])

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001

Seventh largest economy in the world is on the brink

Now between press reports and posts on these boards, I have read that California is the 6th, 7th & 8th largest economy in the world. Someone has to be wrong. Could we come-up with a consesus figure. *<)))

Thanks.

Best Wishes,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001

Z,

Why don't we take a vote?

(Recounts not allowed!)

[g]

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2001

Well you have a company right now ripping people off 50 bucks. And thats not a good way to get your state working again especialy with email on computers get my drift. I got ripped off by the so called Bev's Better Living well i geusse its bev's better way of liveing ripping people off she should be a millionaire soon and the forever trim product must be closely relatted well if california does that to people in other states then why should we all care what happens to your state? you can start by getting this lady outr of business adress is 41400 date street suite d murrieta ca 92562 and the phone is a scam to number is 9096768007 it just lers more people into the scam. Well for me and the rest of the people who im sure there is some because we have no way to get intouch with them we would apreciate your help. Maybe i should get in touch with 20 20 and see if they can find out if its a scam. they told me i could mail there flyers and get paid well they are the ones who got paid and i guesse im the sucker right. Nice state you have!!!!

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2001

Gesh Poole, you are freaking clueless after reading this thread again. No wonder you thought OJ innocent :)

You "sound" so convincing, have you considered a Law career? ~:)

I doubt 10% of your conclusions on this baby accurate. Reminds me of all them Infomagic/Yourdon/North exposes on why the CDC will cause all hell to break loose. Sounds all good till ya do some actual research and understand the situation is like completely the opposite of what ya thought.

I have already posted the TCA-Fun and Profits thing twice--go read it if you care to be accurate.

BTW, you give the enviromental nazis way too much credit. Clue one for you ought be the fuel generating 50% of the watts in Cali--- Natural Gas. Why this fuel? Go ask Bush Sr and his Clean Air Act of 1990 rewrite paving the way for Ken Lay and co. Course blaming hippies in sandals easier for you common folk to grasp. I think the term Simpleton applies.

I can understand why so many are clueless on the California issue. Most of what is going on is perfectly within the rules. Course these scumballs wrote the damn things, but nevertheless most of it is legal.

As to lonnie the cowboy, well good luck chum. And do try and understand Bev "probably" not the rep for the whole state. Just a guideline of course.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2001