Apr 6, 2011 -- 5:35PM, Jstanl wrote:

Apr 6, 2011 -- 5:18PM, Father_Oblivion wrote:

Apr 6, 2011 -- 3:43PM, Jstanl wrote:

But the assertion that the government operates on substantially less overhead than a similar private sector operation is so ludicrus that it is not even worthy of further discussion.

Oh really? Then how does Alameda Power and Light (owned by the City of Alameda in California) do it with no subsidies and lower rates than PG&E, while PG&E gets tax breaks and also has the advantage of scale?

Please, look into this example and explain how this does not directly counter your assertion.

It's your claim why don't you explain it?

And why did TVA provide electricity for decades at rates way below what surrounding power companies charged.

(Do you really expect me to believe that there is a power company out there that operates with no subsidies?)

It was your claim, I simply provided factual information that refutes your claim that "...governments operate on substantially less overhead than a similar private sector operation is so ludicrus that it is not even worthy of further discussion."

You made the claim not I, you even said that it is 'ludicrous' to argue against it, and then I presented factual information regarding two power companies (one government owned and the other private) that operate side-by-side in the same market, and even with the advantage of scale, government subsidies and the much higher rates PG&E charges in San Francisco, San Rafael and the well to do cities of the San Francisco Penninsula, Alameda operates on a far lower overhead and keeps their equipment in A-1 shape, while PG&E has received subsidies, cheated rate payers, refused to pay the City of San Francisco billions in debt to the city, complains it needs to raise rates to provide adequate maintenance, and so on and so on!

Alameda Power and Light, a city-owned power company, operates with no subsidies and charges low rates and keeps its equipment in excellent shape.

Apr 6, 2011 -- 6:13PM, Father_Oblivion wrote:

Apr 6, 2011 -- 5:35PM, Jstanl wrote:

Apr 6, 2011 -- 5:18PM, Father_Oblivion wrote:

Apr 6, 2011 -- 3:43PM, Jstanl wrote:

But the assertion that the government operates on substantially less overhead than a similar private sector operation is so ludicrus that it is not even worthy of further discussion.

Oh really? Then how does Alameda Power and Light (owned by the City of Alameda in California) do it with no subsidies and lower rates than PG&E, while PG&E gets tax breaks and also has the advantage of scale?

Please, look into this example and explain how this does not directly counter your assertion.

It's your claim why don't you explain it?

And why did TVA provide electricity for decades at rates way below what surrounding power companies charged.

(Do you really expect me to believe that there is a power company out there that operates with no subsidies?)

It was your claim, I simply provided factual information that refutes your claim that "...governments operate on substantially less overhead than a similar private sector operation is so ludicrus that it is not even worthy of further discussion."

You made the claim not I, you even said that it is 'ludicrous' to argue against it, and then I presented factual information regarding two power companies (one government owned and the other private) that operate side-by-side in the same market, and even with the advantage of scale, government subsidies and the much higher rates PG&E charges in San Francisco, San Rafael and the well to do cities of the San Francisco Penninsula, Alameda operates on a far lower overhead and keeps their equipment in A-1 shape, while PG&E has received subsidies, cheated rate payers, refused to pay the City of San Francisco billions in debt to the city, complains it needs to raise rates to provide adequate maintenance, and so on and so on!

Alameda Power and Light, a city-owned power company, operates with no subsidies and charges low rates and keeps its equipment in excellent shape.

 

F.O., what you are seeking here simply will not be handled in the way one would expect in a serious discussion.  What we find are two people who simply will not accept anything that you may provide, but they also will not provide one speck of evidence from any source.  From their position, they're right, you're wrong, and they don't have to provide anything to support their position.  Nothing.  Nada.  Just take their word for it and that should be enough.  Sorry, but that doesn't "sail" with me, and I refuse any longer to have anything to do with either of them, especially since this has been their m.o. many times before.  In an honest discussion, both sides have some obligation to show evidence and logic, but they supply neither.

I had apologized for being rude, which I was, but I don't apologize for asserting the simple fact that it they are not being forthright in this "discussion".  It is not just up to us to present the evidence, and they have made one assertion after another after another without posting one shred of evidence to support them-- not one. 

Frustrating, isn't it?   

Relevant to VRA's last post, the following is the assertion regarding Alemeda Power and no evidence has be offered to substantiate the claim.

"Oh really? Then how does Alameda Power and Light (owned by the City of Alameda in California) do it with no subsidies and lower rates than PG&E, while PG&E gets tax breaks and also has the advantage of scale?"