Politically Challenged

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Islamofacist Jihadists!

Across the sea, into the continents of old, halfway to the east there lies nations with which contact is infrequent, trade is light and our perspectives biased. This Middle East, as you might name it, has become a turbulent land in recent times. Terrorist organizations and insurgents seek to form regimes so unpleasant and oppressive that few could survive under its harsh laws. They innocuously named it Islamism. Religion controlling the state; a form of government apparently baffling to Americans.

Yet, on the very podiums upon which candidates speak of freedom and justice, American politicians are the same who bring God into the daily discussions of lawmaking. The hallowed halls of the United States government are abound with references to God, not only for the mere symbolism but in earnest belief that it is integral to government. In the same country that speaks out fear against Islamism the constituents demand Christianism.

History has shown us time and again that human institutions holding to the belief that they are the manifestations of God's work are dangerous. The rise of secular government came about because the ability to question authority leads us to a society wherein which individuals need not fear the institution. Instead, questioning leads to a liberal and free society.

These governments as one may state, are two sides of the same coin, leading to oppression and authoritative regimes. The construction of this religious paradigm threatens the very basis of thought and expression. A people can be religious but a state cannot.

Ultrapunk

Monday, October 09, 2006

D is for Deficiency

The price of competition in the murky waters of the market for electricity is the stability of the grid. Across North America, politicians reach into their grab bag of catch words and they find deregulation at the top of the pile. In deregulated California amongst the unlit lights and rolling blackouts they were confident of the cataclysmic benefits of deregulation to which this day they still enjoy its joyous effects.

As a preface to the giant that is deregulation, one could look toward the sunny and beautiful state of California. Peasants and peons alike have heard of the great beheading of the Enron beast but few know what damage and carnage it had wrought in its time. The culture dish in the California market opened itself to grid manipulation, a corrupt scheme that cost several engineers their licence (and one hopes they never gain it back). Worse still, after Enron blew out transmission lines like it snuffed out competition, there was a void in the entities willing to pay for the repairs.

Deregulation invites competition which in turn brings a market organization of a resource essential to survival. Presuming that Canada is not filled with citizens with the power of the Hulk, getting angry each and every hour during winter, one needs electricity to survive. A corporation which must contend in the market seeks to cut its cost, maximize its profits and reduce overhead. Markets do not provide resources to all, it provides to those who have the most money to give. The first cost that is discarded by the grandmaster in the hierarchy of management is the maintenance of transmission lines and the construction of new lines.

In the state of Ohio beautifully deregulated to the point where concepts such as “maintenance” or “failsafes” became unnecessary. They were obsolete. When another corporation can pay the money to build the failsafe, repair a transmission line or construct new infrastructure why do it yourself? The invisible hand of Adam Smith left the grid unsullied by the hands of these corporations even up to the fateful day in August 2003 when an interconnect rotted through and fifty million people plunged into the darkness.

Our government is not noble in its purpose to bring us electricity with its crown corporations. Intervention does not seek to stifle the capitalist man with the oppressive boot of socialism. Electricity is monopolized simply because it is a natural monopoly wherein which a single corporation provides the product cheaper than do several corporations. The concept is fairly simply to describe in real life. Three electricity corporations each building an electric grid is obviously far more expensive than a single electric grid providing energy.

When you see a market monopolized a reflex reaction is to state, “we need to introduce competition”. The logistical nightmare of multiple electric grids is a technical concern and all electrical engineers can appreciate the difficulty in establishing different grids for different corporations. A quick glance at cell phones show you the confusing soup of cell towers and radio signals that create that annoying ring tone that interrupts your movies and also why it’s so expensive.

In basic economics, there exist three simple choices to the matter at hand. Profit maximizing price, average cost pricing and marginal cost pricing. The knees of the down trodden quake at the sound of profit maximizing price. The coffers of the utilities companies overflow as our country freezer is filled with human popsicles. There is the marginal cost pricing, matching social benefit with industrial cost. When it entitles a loss to the operating utility it’s not a surprise it’s a course not oft pursued. We’ve been left with our last option, average cost pricing. The utility earns normal profit and the consumers are left with the lowest price possible without incurring a loss for the company.

When you can simply regulate, why would you deregulate? An electric grid you can depend on is priceless.

Ultra_punk