From: Joe E. Dees (jdees0@students.uwf.edu)
Date: Fri Dec 18 1998 - 11:56:46 MST
Date sent: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 10:41:53 -0500
From: Michael Lorrey <mike@lorrey.com>
Organization: Mikeysoft
To: extropians@extropy.com
Subject: Re: The Education Function
Send reply to: extropians@extropy.com
>
>
> Joe E. Dees wrote:
>
> > Date sent: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 18:13:45 -0500
> > From: Michael Lorrey <mike@lorrey.com>
> > > > , subsidized irrigation to
> > > > corporate agriculture, and cut-rate electricity to corporations.
> > >
> > > Corporations get lower rates because they use more of it. Its called quantity
> > > discounting, just like any other business.
> > >
> > > > You
> > > > don't like welfare to the poor, eh? Then why do you favor it for the
> > > > already wealthy (enough to lobby for such special treatment)?
> > >
> > So you rationalize excuses for corporate welfare. Why? Because
> > there are no rational reasons for it.
>
> You obviously don't know jack about business or economics. Customers who buy larger
> quantities reduce the costs of the supplier because the supplier only has to service
> one customer for that large quantity, rather than several, or hundreds, or even
> thousands. In the case of industry using electricity, its because the utility only has
> to maintain one high power line directly to the plant using the power. It does not
> need to invest in a huge distribution to deliver that amount of power to thousands of
> homes, so the business does not need to pay for the marginal cost of that distribution
> network, just its own single line. Moreover, a large fraction of American industry
> produces surplus power that they sell back to the utilities. Plants which use a lot of
> steam will set up cogeneration systems to supply themselves with power off of the
> steam plant and will sell the surplus to the utility. This dual use saves lots of
> money for both the business and the utility, which allows the utility to keep YOUR
> electricity rates down. Now, who is subisdizing who?
>
>
You are arguing that this is the case in every single subsidy
situation; I'm sure this generalization is false. You also do not
satisfactorily address the other government subsidies I mentioned
(and there are plenty more; just keep tabs on the "Your Money"
series on ABC news, which is a fitting successor to William
Proxmire's "Golden Fleece" awards). Joe
> Mike Lorrey
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:50:03 MST