US energy bills (was Re: Nader)

Dhlazare at aol.com Dhlazare at aol.com
Wed Jun 10 16:17:38 PDT 1998


But there is no monopoly -- more energy is available from more sources at ever lower prices. Deregulation is a reflection of the fact that the old system of state-regulated utilities -- legal monopolies, really -- is breaking down. Besides, it should be public policy to push energy prices much higher by laying on stiff "green" taxes. Americans drive too much and live in over- large, over-heated houses because the environmental and social costs of all this energy consumption are socialized rather than privatized.

Besides, if green taxes were applied, demand would drop and the prices that suppliers would be able to charge would drop as well. This would do a lot more to hurt large energy purveyors, from the utilities to OPEC, far more than the regulatory system that Nader supports.

Dan Lazare

<< Doug Henwood wrote:

> U.S. energy bills aren't "high" by any stretch of the imagination.

Well, they are higher than they should be, for all the normal

reasons (plus the bungled attempt to build safe, efficient, cheap

nuclear plants :-), so they seem to be a decent anti-monopoly

target (moreso, I think, than Microsoft or Intel); but in California,

we're seeing what deregulation of the energy industry really means:

you get a shell game about who is ripping you off, instead of a

single target like PG&E that the SF Guardian can keep tabs on.

/jordan

>>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list