The Alan Grayson Page

The Anthony Weiner Page

Guest Contributors


  • BN-Politics' administrators respect, but do not necessarily endorse, views expressed by our contributors. Our goal is to get the ideas out there. After that, they're on their own.
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 05/2007

Blog Catalog

  • Liberalism Political Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory



« Rep. Gingrey (R-Ga) Encourages Guns at Town Halls? | Main | Greenwald on the IG's Torture Report »

August 25, 2009


cloth shopping

Really memorable and unforgettable moments are captured in this blog.

Steve Bandoh

I'm not for corporate price gouging but can someone please explain this to me, why is it on one hand we scream for more regulation in the energy industry but on the other hand we complain when we pay higher prices to a small group of energy providers? It's not rocket science people the more you regulate the higher the barriers of entry are to get into an industry thus when it comes time for consumers to pay you have a growing number of people demanding the same resource from a fairly small pool of providers. That in addition to the fact this article fails to provide any financial justification for why the rate hike was proposed is why I've started to laugh off articles like this on bucknaked. I haven't had a chance to look at FPL's operational costs but I'm willing to bet there's a pretty damn strong correlation between a rise in their operational costs and the proposed rate hikes. I don't condone corporations taking advantage of consumers but anyone who suggests it's good for corporations to sacrifice profit in the name of what the public decides is good clearly doesn't know their history.

entertainment source

A lot of useful information in those links, thanks. I feel that it might even be too much for me to “digest” in just one week.

Steve Bandoh

True their is a lot of useful information in those links but ultimately what is it that you're trying to say Deb? Is it that a 31% rate hike is excessive? Is it that regulators shouldn't be friends with those they keep in check? Or is it that we need more "consumer friendly" regulators(whatever the heck that means)? Because if it's the 31% rate hike you're sounding off about there very well might be one, but I failed to see where you pointed out why it's excessive. And sorry tough economic times don't give you a pass give me facts that show they are clearly charging a rate way in excess of what the market rate should be.

Or if your point is that regulators shouldn't be friends with those they keep in check show how in this case it's led to them being permissive of shady business. Is it then wrong for me to be friends with police officers, judges, IRS agents, ect.? If not it would be kind of hypocritical to suggest that it's OK for you to do it but when it's them it's wrong. I'm not naive enough to say there isn't a correlation between the relationships and them permitting the energy co. do as they please but I'd suggest that it's a personal issue. Saying regulators can't be friends in the industries they regulate to me is analogous to saying you can't have gay's in the military. True in both cases whether allowing gays or allowing regulator/industry friendships it might lead to some adverse consequences but the two don't necessarily follow. That's why in my opinion in BOTH cases there is no problem and the relationships aren't that big of a deal. If there is clear evidence that the relationships are effecting the quality of their work then by all means remove the individuals who can't handle themselves professionally at work but don't make blanket statements like insider relationships are bad.

Finally, I wondered if you were trying to say that we need more consumer friendly regulators? What does that even mean to you? To me consumer friendly means doing what is best/most sustainable for the consumer. If low prices are what you consider consumer friendly I'm sorry but maybe you should go back to economics 101. Let's pretend that in your consumer friendly world the regulators capped the price of energy at a certain rate. As long as the equilibrium market price is below that rate nothing happens but once it's above that price ceiling yet remains artificially capped you have something called a shortage. Essentially, you'd be mandating BIG ENERGY to sell power at a rate lower than what the market(composed of millions of individuals like yourself) have determined it should be. Simple human nature states if you can get something for cheaper than what you value it at YOU WILL USE MORE OF IT! Hence the reason why Wal-Mart is such a huge success. At a lower mandated price Big Energy would exhaust their supply even quicker (releasing all those green house gasses I'm sure you hate) at a lower profit thus giving them incentive to either leave the industry for something more profitable or only supply to the areas it's cheapest to deliver to. So as the consumer is it really in your best interest to get artificially undervalued energy at the cost of shortages and only being offered service in certain areas? Lol think it through before passing judgment on on "it depends ethics" and totally ignoring the big elephant in the room that runs the world and should be the main focus of all policy decisions. MONEY

The comments to this entry are closed.