Government owned, government built, government run regional monopoly electricity generators in North America are already the absolute cheapest dollars per kilowatt hour in the continent.
It's not communism.
I am referring to hydro quebec, and to the hydroelectric dams in central Washington State.
Would you claim that if we had let the free market build those hydroelectric dams using private capital instead, that we would have better results right now?
All that lost value could have gone to line their pockets, but instead it’s being used for the good of society (to be fair, probably to those same shareholders through different companies at exorbitant rates).
Show me any large scale infrastructure project that has been realized by private enterprises without massive government subsidies. How is your privately funded highway or rail system working out for you?
> How is your privately funded highway or rail system working out for you?
Well, we get lovely toll gates about every 10 miles. Happily they’ve been automated so you can more or less just cruise on, but the constant “that’ll be $3, that’ll be $4, that’ll be $3.50” while you are driving can get on your nerves.
The notion that government supplied infrastructure, which enables private industry to flourish, is somehow communist, would probably make even Ayn Rand pause for a second. From roads to electricity to clean water, government infrastructure has been part of the American success story since the 18th century.
It's only the radical "right wing" (scare quotes because they bear no resemblance to "right wing" thought from before the 90s) that have challenged the government role in giving American industry the tools they need for success.
To call government funded infrastructure "communist" is the clearest illustration of the Overton Window I think I've ever seen.
You mean like china who has 10,000 high speed rails running every day producing the cheapest PV cells and lifted their population out of poverty? Let's just let Elon Musk get richer at the 3 trillion dollar mark he might let us have ONE tunnel.
It isn't, not when there is a better _commercial_ system in the world. If the "invisible hand" was real, great. As it has been a constantly manipulated and managed construct within the world of global finance from the moment Adam Smith shared it with anyone, it completely ceased to have any meaning going forward other than license to savage.
Economics isn't science or maths when you get past the micro level. It is psychology.
If there is a Capitalist society that also has a deep respect for mental health, I say it only exists in Science Fiction from the 50s and 60s.
The goals of communism are pure and true, but insanely unrealistic considering we're talking about humans who still instinctually believe in a reality where scarcity is anything other than a human construct.
On the other hand, naturally, barely restrained capitalism is just going to be a giant cancer where the rich feast off the poor until it all goes down in flames.
What's needed is a shared sense of morality, community and survival across our species.
The communists in Norway, like Russia, benefit enormously from pumping oil out of the ground, which goes to the government. In Norway's case, it's 20% of the GDP. Probably much more today with all the oil price increases.
Can you comment on the communists of Quebec? As a Canadian, this is what I find lacking in debate on American sites like Reddit or HN.
Canada is very similar to the United States, another way of saying that is that Canada does things slightly different yet the results seem to be profoundly different than the States.
Why is that, and what are we as Canadians doing that Americans and others around the world should attempt to copy and improve upon?
While Texans froze and natural gas-fired power plants tripped offline during a February cold snap, natural gas traders and pipeline companies made up to $11 billion in just nine days.
“I will say we understand that it would be unacceptable to just have customers bear the cost on their monthly bill and as if anybody could pay for that,” Gold-Williams said. “So we are working diligently - the financial services team is working diligently, trying to figure out ways to truly spread that cost, potentially maybe, you know 15 - I mean, 10 years or longer to try to make it affordable. We don’t have that fully assessed.”
I'm Australian and as a nation we're considerably more "communist" than can be found in the US .. with many major public funded infrastructure projects historically established, a global AAA credit rating, a minimum living wage since 1900, national health, functioning democracy, etc.
There are numerous counter examples to your overly broad "never ever" claims here.
I would claim that, yes, private capital would generate power more cheaply with those dams, but that isn't the only reason those dams are there. They serve several alternative functions (ie preventing flooding, keeping lakes full) that a free marketeer would not do.
However, dams are cheap enough for power generation that even with government inefficiency involved in their construction and operation, the power is so cheap that it doesn't matter.
I thought that question got empathically answered when Ontario hydro was privatized and split and went to hell together with our electricity prices.
Same with Ontario vs Manitoba or Quebec car insurance etc. Some things just suck when they're privatized - they focus on short term gain and end up with lousy infra and long term preparedness. I think HN has a pretty solid consensus on private telecom monopolies vs municipal fiber as well.
Back to topic, I thought most of usa private power monopolies are basically in dire straits from infra upkeep and maintenance and grid - there's a lot of bright knowledgeable folks on HN so I would genuinely appreciate comment if I'm way off base in my ignorant ways.
As a limiting case, a private system can't do it cheaper than a public one. A private system needs to skim profits off the top, which will always limit how cheap it can go
Private is not always cheaper — the NHS comes to mind as a counter-example, and is cheaper in part because the British government gets to act as a monopsony.
While competition can indeed help illuminate new solutions, competition can also come in the form of different political parties and international comparisons.
It's not communism.
I am referring to hydro quebec, and to the hydroelectric dams in central Washington State.
Would you claim that if we had let the free market build those hydroelectric dams using private capital instead, that we would have better results right now?