Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-17-2011, 11:52 AM   #16
New Member




Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4
I find that those that bandy around terms like 'socialist' are merely displaying their political ignorance & naivetiy.

Anybody who has any idea of what they are talking about is able to give rational argument for their viewpoint.

06-17-2011, 12:11 PM   #17
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,325
QuoteOriginally posted by kwacka Quote
I find that those that bandy around terms like 'socialist' are merely displaying their political ignorance & naivetiy.

Anybody who has any idea of what they are talking about is able to give rational argument for their viewpoint.
Okay, so give us a rational argument for why everyone ("those" as opposed to "some") who uses the term "socialist" is politically ignorant. Or do you just like to bandy about generalities like that?
06-17-2011, 01:05 PM   #18
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Finland
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,196
QuoteOriginally posted by mikemike Quote
I know that "socialist" is a charged word, but in the TVA's case it is 100% accurate by the dictionary definition of socialism being a system where the state owners the means of production.
...
In a strict dictionary sense socialism means that *all* means of production are owned by the state, that is, private ownership of the same has been completely eliminated. This is a rather radical concept compared to the state owning a utility company in a system where private ownership of the means of production is the norm.
06-17-2011, 01:05 PM   #19
Inactive Account




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Orleans
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,053
QuoteOriginally posted by kwacka Quote
I find that those that bandy around terms like 'socialist' are merely displaying their political ignorance & naivetiy.

Anybody who has any idea of what they are talking about is able to give rational argument for their viewpoint.
Your being overly sensitive, I was not "bandying" the term around to stir up the pot. I was simply pointing out the fact that the TVA is a government owned (AKA Socialist) entity to those readers who might be unaware of that fact.

06-17-2011, 01:14 PM   #20
Inactive Account




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Orleans
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,053
QuoteOriginally posted by newarts Quote
Isn't competition supposed to be better than central planning ?)
Certainly it makes sense to have independent centers of expertise. Conflict resolution should follow not lead the development process.
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
Yes, but what is inflammatory is that the fact that whether TVA is or is not owned by a government entity is irrelevant to the problem. It would be the same or worse if it were private.
We have a serious problem with the safety and environmental soundness of coal and nuclear plants. That problem exists regardless of the agencies involved. It does not bother me more or less that these are federal agencies.
Competition with external organizations is good i.e. TVA competes against Entergy or Centerpoint but this kind of competition is counterproductive.

The regulations regarding the emissions and nuclear safety are extremely complicated and given the TVA's position and relationship with the government, they should be uniquely positioned to navigate those complexities and aid the regulators in hammering out effective, economically sensible regulations. Unfortunately, they do not exhibit any kind of industrial leadership in that regard. They are not exemplars of low emissions, safety, or cooperation with regulators. In fact the only reason that they are shutting down the 18 coal units is because the State of NC dragged their asses kicking and screaming up and down the courthouse steps.
06-17-2011, 02:05 PM   #21
Veteran Member
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,830
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by mikemike Quote
Competition with external organizations is good i.e. TVA competes against Entergy or Centerpoint but this kind of competition is counterproductive.

The regulations regarding the emissions and nuclear safety are extremely complicated and given the TVA's position and relationship with the government, they should be uniquely positioned to navigate those complexities and aid the regulators in hammering out effective, economically sensible regulations. Unfortunately, they do not exhibit any kind of industrial leadership in that regard. They are not exemplars of low emissions, safety, or cooperation with regulators. In fact the only reason that they are shutting down the 18 coal units is because the State of NC dragged their asses kicking and screaming up and down the courthouse steps.
There is little real competition in electric utilities or transmission. They are virtually all regulated monopolies. Whether they are government owned or built with private investment just determines who gets paid a dividend. Government owned utilities don't necessarily have any different relationship with the rest of government than other regulated monopolies. That "government is government" is some kind of ideological illusion. Government functioning in a proprietary setting is not that different from other entities which might perform that same function in that setting. For a one paragraph explanation, see Governmental v. Proprietary Functions

Last edited by GeneV; 06-17-2011 at 02:27 PM.
06-17-2011, 02:15 PM   #22
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ferguson, Mo.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,348
Curiosity reigns supreme,MM,you work in the industry right?,perhaps as hobbiest?

06-17-2011, 02:47 PM   #23
Inactive Account




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Orleans
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,053
QuoteOriginally posted by BillM Quote
Curiosity reigns supreme,MM,you work in the industry right?,perhaps as hobbiest?
No, I do software and although our company does some software for power plants, I have never worked on any of those projects. Although recently I have been doing more project management than anything else, what I am really good at is slicing and dicing data into interesting pieces of (usually geospatial) information. I have several friends and family who work as engineers, project managers, and in regulatory affairs for Shaw and Entergy as well as oil and gas companies, so I hear a lot of bitching and moaning over drinks I am actually a gung ho environmentalist but I am also a pragmatist and can empathize with the catch-22 these industries face where they need to simultaneously meet demand while balancing environmental and economic costs. So I like to engage them so I can listen and try to nudge them in the right direction for the environment.

Oh, and in my spare time I try to get a research reactor running in my garage... jk

Last edited by mikemike; 06-17-2011 at 03:30 PM.
06-18-2011, 12:48 AM   #24
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ferguson, Mo.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,348
QuoteOriginally posted by mikemike Quote
the catch-22 these industries face
Appreciate that Mike,respect the ojectivity.On that point above have personally
experienced.No doudt its a balancing act.But,as counterpoint,we have a catastrophic
example of man's ability to challenge nature in other parts of the world currently
regarding Gene's post.If we have learned anything at all,its that industries self
policing of critical mass was and is,ineffective.
06-19-2011, 09:35 PM   #25
Inactive Account




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Orleans
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,053
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
There is little real competition in electric utilities or transmission. They are virtually all regulated monopolies. Whether they are government owned or built with private investment just determines who gets paid a dividend. Government owned utilities don't necessarily have any different relationship with the rest of government than other regulated monopolies. That "government is government" is some kind of ideological illusion. Government functioning in a proprietary setting is not that different from other entities which might perform that same function in that setting. For a one paragraph explanation, see Governmental v. Proprietary Functions
Very interesting distinction there, but it is somewhat troubling to me because what it says is that if the government steps in and fills a production role in the economy, the government's services and business model will be virtually indistinguishable from a private competitor's business model. This has implications beyond just energy, but also in health care where there is a yearning for the government to take a more active role. If they do so, would the public option health insurance or public hospital be operating in a proprietary setting? If so, how would that improve anything?

One of the few compelling arguments for the government taking on a role in the economy is that they might build their business model around something other than profits. Like a power company that puts the environment first or a health insurance company that puts the patient's long term health first. I have always had a sense that the government didn't need to take on those roles because although the different model was a possibility, it was not a given and it was one of the least likely possibilities. The distinction between governmental functions and proprietary functions really brings into focus why that ideal possibility is so improbable.

P.S. geaux tigers

Last edited by mikemike; 06-19-2011 at 09:46 PM.
06-20-2011, 06:06 AM   #26
Veteran Member
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,830
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by mikemike Quote
Very interesting distinction there, but it is somewhat troubling to me because what it says is that if the government steps in and fills a production role in the economy, the government's services and business model will be virtually indistinguishable from a private competitor's business model. This has implications beyond just energy, but also in health care where there is a yearning for the government to take a more active role. If they do so, would the public option health insurance or public hospital be operating in a proprietary setting? If so, how would that improve anything?

One of the few compelling arguments for the government taking on a role in the economy is that they might build their business model around something other than profits. Like a power company that puts the environment first or a health insurance company that puts the patient's long term health first. I have always had a sense that the government didn't need to take on those roles because although the different model was a possibility, it was not a given and it was one of the least likely possibilities. The distinction between governmental functions and proprietary functions really brings into focus why that ideal possibility is so improbable.

P.S. geaux tigers
What this example says is that the environmental issues are only a product of the profit to some extent. At some level, a non-profit entity may also become desperate to get the job done, and do something stupid. However, that level of desperation is different from what is may inspire a manager just to squeeze a few more bucks from the enterprise. Every human endeavor is subject to humans making mistakes.

The same is true of health care costs. There will be a limit to what the government can do, but the current system is so bloated that there is a lot of room for improvement. And, yes, there is a greater concern for public health in the public system. I just experienced it personally. My stay in a private hospital gave me better food and a prettier room, but the nurses and staff at the public hospital expressed far more concern and attention.

Sometimes, it seems to me that the difference between the libertarian right and moderates or even the Left, is that the Right expects there to be one solution--one principle to follow, and that will result in utopia. When something goes bad in a system, it must mean the system is imperfect and to be avoided. Others are looking for improvement, rather than perfection. Government will not give us a healthcare utopia, but it has a good chance of improving things. If it weren't for the TVA, there would not have been power for many years to many parts of the country. I would have been very slow to substitute health care with heavy government involvement for a private system. However, we have had a very long time to judge this system, and we have numerous examples outside the U.S. to compare other systems.
06-20-2011, 12:44 PM   #27
Senior Member
Talisker's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Isle of Skye, Scotland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 262
QuoteOriginally posted by jolepp Quote
In a strict dictionary sense socialism means that *all* means of production are owned by the state....
At the risk of going off thread, that's incorrect. Socialism simply means collective ownership of said means (substitute common or public ownership if 'collective' produces an understandable knee-jerk image of the old Soviet Union). None of the means of production need be owned by the state. If we woke up tomorrow and General Motors ownership was suddenly and miraculously distributed among its workers, and its workers ONLY, it would fit the socialist model. With no government ownership, not a cent, penny, or rouble.

What you are defining is state socialism which was eventually practised by the Soviet Union and others who decided that the 'state' equalled the collective, (or the commons), but then went further still when the 'leaders' gave themselves permission to define the state, with predictable results....
06-21-2011, 02:09 AM   #28
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Finland
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,196
QuoteOriginally posted by Talisker Quote
At the risk of going off thread, that's incorrect. Socialism simply means collective ownership of said means
...
Well, Merriam-Webster has this:

QuoteQuote:
Socialism

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
(Socialism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary).

2 above is the dictionary definition I had in mind.

It is hard to see how common ownership on a large scale could in practice be anything but state ownership. On a smaller scale there are the Kibbutzim though, which, I suppose, have been more of a success (or less of a failure ) than the USSR. The Kibbutzim would seem to fit under 1 above, a definition of an ideology as opposed to a system of government and economy (2).

I suppose socialism is generally - perhaps unfairly - associated with the USSR; the concept is far older and the USSR 'implementation' of it is hardly the only possible one.
06-21-2011, 04:55 AM   #29
Veteran Member
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,830
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by jolepp Quote
Well, Merriam-Webster has this:

(Socialism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary).

2 above is the dictionary definition I had in mind.

It is hard to see how common ownership on a large scale could in practice be anything but state ownership. On a smaller scale there are the Kibbutzim though, which, I suppose, have been more of a success (or less of a failure ) than the USSR. The Kibbutzim would seem to fit under 1 above, a definition of an ideology as opposed to a system of government and economy (2).

I suppose socialism is generally - perhaps unfairly - associated with the USSR; the concept is far older and the USSR 'implementation' of it is hardly the only possible one.
Interesting. Definition 1 or, perhaps, 2b are the definitions I generally attribute to this term. Definition 2a is hard to distinguish from Communism Communism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary (Def. 1) and causes a good deal of confusion IMHO.
06-21-2011, 06:38 AM   #30
Inactive Account




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Orleans
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,053
Whats kind of shocking to me is that there is some new PC where you can't even use the word "socialist" to describe a government owned producer without being derided. Maybe the mods need to blacklist the word so that it gets censored whenever someone dares type it.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
climate change
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Window for climate action closing fast Ash General Talk 28 06-10-2011 05:11 PM
another blow against nuclear power jeffkrol General Talk 234 05-03-2011 02:33 PM
Nuclear fusion -Bussard Reactors jeffkrol General Talk 5 06-24-2010 08:16 PM
US to adopt narrower policy on using nuclear arms Artesian General Talk 11 04-06-2010 09:34 PM
Copenhagen Climate Summit Phil1 General Talk 135 12-17-2009 09:28 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:54 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top