UJRefugees.net

captquint wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:15 pm

necronomous wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:10 pm

captquint wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:09 pm

Did you skip the last part?

Cause that's what the government is known for. Amirite!!

If you feel that it is being run incorrectly you can vote in Opposition or run for the position yourself. Or I can stand in front of the company with a sign. One seems more effective than the other.

analhamster wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:25 pm

necronomous wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:08 pm

analhamster wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:19 pm If you go with evidence rather than your gut neither model is intrinsically more efficient. Both have potential flaws that regulation can avoid. A private company with a monopoly will price gouge if it isn't prevented from doing so, because the normal check to that, competition, is not there. On the other hand it tends to lead to higher infrastructure investment.

Edumacate yoselves if interested.
http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/li ... ciency.pdf

I'd prefer competition, no monopolies, including the government monopoly, and shitty taxes.

There's only one set of infrastructure. It's an inherent monopoly that can only be mitigated by government regulation. This is why it's one of the areas where public and private actually achieve about the same efficiency results. When private companies get involved they are bound by the kinds of rules that restrain public companies from fucking over their customers.

necronomous wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:34 pm

captquint wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:15 pm

necronomous wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:10 pm
Cause that's what the government is known for. Amirite!!

If you feel that it is being run incorrectly you can vote in Opposition or run for the position yourself. Or I can stand in front of the company with a sign. One seems more effective than the other.

Really? And how did that work for you when you voted for the president?

captquint wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:39 pm

necronomous wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:34 pm

captquint wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:15 pm

If you feel that it is being run incorrectly you can vote in Opposition or run for the position yourself. Or I can stand in front of the company with a sign. One seems more effective than the other.

Really? And how did that work for you when you voted for the president?

False equivalence

necronomous wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:36 pm

analhamster wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:25 pm

necronomous wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:08 pm
I'd prefer competition, no monopolies, including the government monopoly, and shitty taxes.

There's only one set of infrastructure. It's an inherent monopoly that can only be mitigated by government regulation. This is why it's one of the areas where public and private actually achieve about the same efficiency results. When private companies get involved they are bound by the kinds of rules that restrain public companies from fucking over their customers.

I understand what's there. I said I prefer competition. That reduces the need for regulation. And no need for government. In a situation of a big bad company or a really shitty government, I choose the company.

analhamster wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:51 pm

necronomous wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:36 pm

analhamster wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:25 pm

There's only one set of infrastructure. It's an inherent monopoly that can only be mitigated by government regulation. This is why it's one of the areas where public and private actually achieve about the same efficiency results. When private companies get involved they are bound by the kinds of rules that restrain public companies from fucking over their customers.

I understand what's there. I said I prefer competition. That reduces the need for regulation. And no need for government. In a situation of a big bad company or a really shitty government, I choose the company.

It doesn't appear that you do understand what's there. A single physical pipeline. If it's owned outright by a private company then they have a monopoly and can charge you as much as you can bear to get gas. There are no alternative pipelines to each home to buy gas from a competitor. Free market competition does not exist in this scenario unless it is introduced by government regulation, because there is only one line to your house. Regulators either impose restrictions in the bidding process to build the infrastructure or in the bidding process to use the infrastructure. You can bid to use this pipeline but so can your competitor, or you can use this pipeline in the absence of competitors but your prices are limited to x. The company has one overriding interest which is to get as much money out of you as possible. The government has one overriding interest which is to get your vote. The latter controls the former when it comes to utility prices.

captquint wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:55 pm Fucking guy is being obtuse on purpose

necronomous wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:10 pm

captquint wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:55 pm Fucking guy is being obtuse on purpose

You lack self awareness.

captquint wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:13 pm

necronomous wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:10 pm

captquint wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:55 pm Fucking guy is being obtuse on purpose

You lack self awareness.

Yes, because dealing with the Commissioners of a PUC is the same as voting for the highest office in the land. By all means tell me how I'm wrong.

efman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:22 pm Less babbling and more Lollz.

Or I am going to find another group of retards to hang out with.

necronomous wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:26 pm

captquint wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:13 pm

necronomous wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:10 pm

You lack self awareness.

Yes, because dealing with the Commissioners of a PUC is the same as voting for the highest office in the land. By all means tell me how I'm wrong.

You're voting in a government official that you hope will win and do what you want, but more than likely, even if you win the official you elected is corrupt or corruptable, and you 9 times out of 10 get shit on anyway.

necronomous wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:10 pm

analhamster wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:51 pm

necronomous wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:36 pm

I understand what's there. I said I prefer competition. That reduces the need for regulation. And no need for government. In a situation of a big bad company or a really shitty government, I choose the company.

It doesn't appear that you do understand what's there. A single physical pipeline. If it's owned outright by a private company then they have a monopoly and can charge you as much as you can bear to get gas. There are no alternative pipelines to each home to buy gas from a competitor. Free market competition does not exist in this scenario unless it is introduced by government regulation, because there is only one line to your house. Regulators either impose restrictions in the bidding process to build the infrastructure or in the bidding process to use the infrastructure. You can bid to use this pipeline but so can your competitor, or you can use this pipeline in the absence of competitors but your prices are limited to x. The company has one overriding interest which is to get as much money out of you as possible. The government has one overriding interest which is to get your vote. The latter controls the former when it comes to utility prices.

I say again. I understand what is there. I get what's in place. I disagree with monopolies. I said what I would prefer, meaning if I had the option would be competition which would prevent these scenarios. However if it's a choice between a monopolistic company or a monopolistic government, I choose the latter. The reason a company can become a monopoly is because the government exists and the company can lobby for the things that thincident is asking for-- regulation. Thus preventing competition. A vote will not change a corrupt government. It will just bring in other people being corrupt.

analhamster wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:46 pm

necronomous wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:10 pm

analhamster wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:51 pm

It doesn't appear that you do understand what's there. A single physical pipeline. If it's owned outright by a private company then they have a monopoly and can charge you as much as you can bear to get gas. There are no alternative pipelines to each home to buy gas from a competitor. Free market competition does not exist in this scenario unless it is introduced by government regulation, because there is only one line to your house. Regulators either impose restrictions in the bidding process to build the infrastructure or in the bidding process to use the infrastructure. You can bid to use this pipeline but so can your competitor, or you can use this pipeline in the absence of competitors but your prices are limited to x. The company has one overriding interest which is to get as much money out of you as possible. The government has one overriding interest which is to get your vote. The latter controls the former when it comes to utility prices.

I say again. I understand what is there. I get what's in place. I disagree with monopolies. I said what I would prefer, meaning if I had the option would be competition which would prevent these scenarios. However if it's a choice between a monopolistic company or a monopolistic government, I choose the latter. The reason a company can become a monopoly is because the government exists and the company can lobby for the things that thincident is asking for-- regulation. Thus preventing competition. A vote will not change a corrupt government. It will just bring in other people being corrupt.

Well no, you clearly don't. It's really very simple, try to stick with me here. The gas that you use in your house comes down a pipe. Just the one pipe. You can't choose from a variety of different pipes at different competitive prices, there is just the one pipe. Multiple suppliers pool their gas and get paid based on what their customers take out, they don't tag each molecule or have individual supply lines. A monopolistic company can charge whatever it likes, their only limiting factor is whether you'd shut the gas off before you paid and if enough of their customers would do the same that they've reached the maximum money extraction point. They don't and in fact can't do that because they don't really have a monopoly over the infrastructure, in order to be your gas supplier they've had to use infrastructure they don't own or have agreed to contractual limits on using. The sole reason you don't get fucked on gas prices is that the big bad government has your back, regardless of whether a public or private utility does the billing. There's one pipe going to your home, so whoever owned it fully could charge you as much as you could pay before it became cheaper to just go buy a big hillbilly gas tank.

analhamster wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:46 pm

necronomous wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:10 pm

analhamster wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:51 pm

It doesn't appear that you do understand what's there. A single physical pipeline. If it's owned outright by a private company then they have a monopoly and can charge you as much as you can bear to get gas. There are no alternative pipelines to each home to buy gas from a competitor. Free market competition does not exist in this scenario unless it is introduced by government regulation, because there is only one line to your house. Regulators either impose restrictions in the bidding process to build the infrastructure or in the bidding process to use the infrastructure. You can bid to use this pipeline but so can your competitor, or you can use this pipeline in the absence of competitors but your prices are limited to x. The company has one overriding interest which is to get as much money out of you as possible. The government has one overriding interest which is to get your vote. The latter controls the former when it comes to utility prices.

I say again. I understand what is there. I get what's in place. I disagree with monopolies. I said what I would prefer, meaning if I had the option would be competition which would prevent these scenarios. However if it's a choice between a monopolistic company or a monopolistic government, I choose the latter. The reason a company can become a monopoly is because the government exists and the company can lobby for the things that thincident is asking for-- regulation. Thus preventing competition. A vote will not change a corrupt government. It will just bring in other people being corrupt.

Well no, you clearly don't. It's really very simple, try to stick with me here. The gas that you use in your house comes down a pipe. Just the one pipe. You can't choose from a variety of different pipes at different competitive prices, there is just the one pipe. Multiple suppliers pool their gas and get paid based on what their customers take out, they don't tag each molecule or have individual supply lines. A monopolistic company can charge whatever it likes, their only limiting factor is whether you'd shut the gas off before you paid and if enough of their customers would do the same that they've reached the maximum money extraction point. They don't and in fact can't do that because they don't really have a monopoly over the infrastructure, in order to be your gas supplier they've had to use infrastructure they don't own or have agreed to contractual limits on using. The sole reason you don't get fucked on gas prices is that the big bad government has your back, regardless of whether a public or private utility does the billing. There's one pipe going to your home, so whoever owned it fully could charge you as much as you could pay before it became cheaper to just go buy a big hillbilly gas tank.

necronomous wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:13 pm

analhamster wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:46 pm

necronomous wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:10 pm
I say again. I understand what is there. I get what's in place. I disagree with monopolies. I said what I would prefer, meaning if I had the option would be competition which would prevent these scenarios. However if it's a choice between a monopolistic company or a monopolistic government, I choose the latter. The reason a company can become a monopoly is because the government exists and the company can lobby for the things that thincident is asking for-- regulation. Thus preventing competition. A vote will not change a corrupt government. It will just bring in other people being corrupt.

Well no, you clearly don't. It's really very simple, try to stick with me here. The gas that you use in your house comes down a pipe. Just the one pipe. You can't choose from a variety of different pipes at different competitive prices, there is just the one pipe. Multiple suppliers pool their gas and get paid based on what their customers take out, they don't tag each molecule or have individual supply lines. A monopolistic company can charge whatever it likes, their only limiting factor is whether you'd shut the gas off before you paid and if enough of their customers would do the same that they've reached the maximum money extraction point. They don't and in fact can't do that because they don't really have a monopoly over the infrastructure, in order to be your gas supplier they've had to use infrastructure they don't own or have agreed to contractual limits on using. The sole reason you don't get fucked on gas prices is that the big bad government has your back, regardless of whether a public or private utility does the billing. There's one pipe going to your home, so whoever owned it fully could charge you as much as you could pay before it became cheaper to just go buy a big hillbilly gas tank.

Apparently you dont understand prefer. Stay with me here. It's simple really, mine is a hypothetical. Not an indication of being possible now. It's a choice between what I want and what exists. What exists is what you're stating, which is what i dont want. Hypothetically, I would want the other. Hence the word prefer. As for the government having my back, is wholly a farce. The private company lobbies for that contract. The government gets a shit tonne to let them. Then they regulate with subsidies to keep the rate low. So more out of pocket tax wise. Again I am aware what a monopoly is, what's in place and how there is no real choice. Hence the words, I would prefer. And again I say, I would also prefer a monopoly of a company over a monopoly of the government.

Antknot wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:09 pm

analhamster wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:46 pm

necronomous wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:10 pm
I say again. I understand what is there. I get what's in place. I disagree with monopolies. I said what I would prefer, meaning if I had the option would be competition which would prevent these scenarios. However if it's a choice between a monopolistic company or a monopolistic government, I choose the latter. The reason a company can become a monopoly is because the government exists and the company can lobby for the things that thincident is asking for-- regulation. Thus preventing competition. A vote will not change a corrupt government. It will just bring in other people being corrupt.

Well no, you clearly don't. It's really very simple, try to stick with me here. The gas that you use in your house comes down a pipe. Just the one pipe. You can't choose from a variety of different pipes at different competitive prices, there is just the one pipe. Multiple suppliers pool their gas and get paid based on what their customers take out, they don't tag each molecule or have individual supply lines. A monopolistic company can charge whatever it likes, their only limiting factor is whether you'd shut the gas off before you paid and if enough of their customers would do the same that they've reached the maximum money extraction point. They don't and in fact can't do that because they don't really have a monopoly over the infrastructure, in order to be your gas supplier they've had to use infrastructure they don't own or have agreed to contractual limits on using. The sole reason you don't get fucked on gas prices is that the big bad government has your back, regardless of whether a public or private utility does the billing. There's one pipe going to your home, so whoever owned it fully could charge you as much as you could pay before it became cheaper to just go buy a big hillbilly gas tank.

You ignored the utility paying kickbacks to the regulatory board members to get rate hikes passed.

South Carolina is in trouble because of inept registration by elected officials. The nuke plant that isn't going to be completed is still going to have to be paid for. Just how badly the population is going to be gouged is yet to be seen.

analhamster wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:22 pm

necronomous wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:13 pm

analhamster wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:46 pm

Well no, you clearly don't. It's really very simple, try to stick with me here. The gas that you use in your house comes down a pipe. Just the one pipe. You can't choose from a variety of different pipes at different competitive prices, there is just the one pipe. Multiple suppliers pool their gas and get paid based on what their customers take out, they don't tag each molecule or have individual supply lines. A monopolistic company can charge whatever it likes, their only limiting factor is whether you'd shut the gas off before you paid and if enough of their customers would do the same that they've reached the maximum money extraction point. They don't and in fact can't do that because they don't really have a monopoly over the infrastructure, in order to be your gas supplier they've had to use infrastructure they don't own or have agreed to contractual limits on using. The sole reason you don't get fucked on gas prices is that the big bad government has your back, regardless of whether a public or private utility does the billing. There's one pipe going to your home, so whoever owned it fully could charge you as much as you could pay before it became cheaper to just go buy a big hillbilly gas tank.

Apparently you dont understand prefer. Stay with me here. It's simple really, mine is a hypothetical. Not an indication of being possible now. It's a choice between what I want and what exists. What exists is what you're stating, which is what i dont want. Hypothetically, I would want the other. Hence the word prefer. As for the government having my back, is wholly a farce. The private company lobbies for that contract. The government gets a shit tonne to let them. Then they regulate with subsidies to keep the rate low. So more out of pocket tax wise. Again I am aware what a monopoly is, what's in place and how there is no real choice. Hence the words, I would prefer. And again I say, I would also prefer a monopoly of a company over a monopoly of the government.

Ah, I see. So I'm talking about reality and what is possible and you are fantasising about lala fairyland where every home has multiple lines and magical fairies. You would hypothetically prefer magical fairyland. Sure thing buddy, I don't know why I didn't see that.

necronomous wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:19 pm

analhamster wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:22 pm

necronomous wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:13 pm
Apparently you dont understand prefer. Stay with me here. It's simple really, mine is a hypothetical. Not an indication of being possible now. It's a choice between what I want and what exists. What exists is what you're stating, which is what i dont want. Hypothetically, I would want the other. Hence the word prefer. As for the government having my back, is wholly a farce. The private company lobbies for that contract. The government gets a shit tonne to let them. Then they regulate with subsidies to keep the rate low. So more out of pocket tax wise. Again I am aware what a monopoly is, what's in place and how there is no real choice. Hence the words, I would prefer. And again I say, I would also prefer a monopoly of a company over a monopoly of the government.

Ah, I see. So I'm talking about reality and what is possible and you are fantasising about lala fairyland where every home has multiple lines and magical fairies. You would hypothetically prefer magical fairyland. Sure thing buddy, I don't know why I didn't see that.

See what you did there was take a question out of context to prove a point that no one was fighting so you could appear smart. When in reality I think I figured out what you're trying to do. And that's convince me you're an idiot. And you know what, you win. I'm convinced.

See what actually happened was, I just made a simple comment about I thought something was wrong and stupid and I would prefer a different thing. It wasnt an arguement, just a statement. Then you wanted to appear smart, so out of no where you wanted to explain a monopoly and what currently is going on that is totally shit, to prove how great and wonderful the government is, and how it's actually helping me.
And that's wonderful and all, but you really have this strong desire to prove how smart you are all the time. And sadly you do so by taking shit out of context and then make up this whole side argument to be defended while at the same time disagreeing with my original point. So now the person has to defend his original argument, plus one no one was even arguing. And then you repeat, no you dont get it, again to reaffirm your "intelligence."
You are are an odd person with what appears to be extremely low self esteem and the constant need to assert how right he is.
Good for you man. Now say melt or whatever and make up other shot to argue with some bullshit fallacy or what have you.
Add rinse repeat.

analhamster wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:43 pm

necronomous wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:19 pm

analhamster wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:22 pm

Ah, I see. So I'm talking about reality and what is possible and you are fantasising about lala fairyland where every home has multiple lines and magical fairies. You would hypothetically prefer magical fairyland. Sure thing buddy, I don't know why I didn't see that.

See what you did there was take a question out of context to prove a point that no one was fighting so you could appear smart. When in reality I think I figured out what you're trying to do. And that's convince me you're an idiot. And you know what, you win. I'm convinced.

See what actually happened was, I just made a simple comment about I thought something was wrong and stupid and I would prefer a different thing. It wasnt an arguement, just a statement. Then you wanted to appear smart, so out of no where you wanted to explain a monopoly and what currently is going on that is totally shit, to prove how great and wonderful the government is, and how it's actually helping me.
And that's wonderful and all, but you really have this strong desire to prove how smart you are all the time. And sadly you do so by taking shit out of context and then make up this whole side argument to be defended while at the same time disagreeing with my original point. So now the person has to defend his original argument, plus one no one was even arguing. And then you repeat, no you dont get it, again to reaffirm your "intelligence."
You are are an odd person with what appears to be extremely low self esteem and the constant need to assert how right he is.
Good for you man. Now say melt or whatever and make up other shot to argue with some bullshit fallacy or what have you.
Add rinse repeat.

Yeah, you like to appear smart and spew a bunch of words out your ass when caught out, but what it comes down to on this occasion is I was explaining the practical realities of hooking a property in to a shared grid and the inescapable economic consequences, and you were, it eventually emerged, saying yeah but what if we lived in la la fairyland where magic happens. We don't. Regardless of whether you pay your money to a public or private utility, the big bad government is working behind the scenes to keep your bills low because supply to your house is an unavoidable monopoly without it.