Someone tell me why

[Perd Hapley]

There isn’t an option so you pay the price they set.

There are lots of places currently with infrastructure and ability where you could easily buy from 1 or the other but you can’t bc of government.

If you could, price per kWh would go down.

I guess I misunderstood the phrasing. It seemed like maybe you had a property at or near the interface of 2 different utility companies’ service areas (based on “100 yards apart”), and wanted to know why you couldn’t choose either service? I was particularly curious if you had a compelling reason to choose one or the other.

To play devil’s advocate, let’s set aside the fact that there are defined usage areas, with Public Service Commissions, etc. - and you’re either in one or the other. Let’s pretend that its open kimono, but you still have to account for added infrastructure for T-ing into an existing service area that’s not your “base” service.

Say you live on the south side of a street. Your utility provider is Company A. The houses on the north side of the street are Company B. You decide that you like Company B better for whatever reason. Let’s say you have underground utilities, which for this particular example is probably the most simple and straightforward case study.

So, you decide you’re switching to Company B. You call Company B to tell them you want to start using them. Company B says, “OK great, but its going to take a minute. First I need you to fill out this paperwork, then you also have to pay this New Service one-time fee of $X to start the process”. Then they are going to have to get permits / approvals to do excavation, additional line hook up, concrete cutting and patching to run under the road and sidewalk, etc. Then they are going to have to reach out to your current utility company to get a map of the lot showing their line locations and hazard areas. Then they’re going to have to dig up your yard, hook up a new meter, and then have an electrician switch over the service point at the property.

That’s all going to cost Company B a hell of a lot of money, which really means its going to cost YOU a lot of money. And that is the most simple, straightforward, and hassle free way of theoretically going outside your normal service area. I really don’t believe there are any 2 utility companies in the south that are so wildly different in price structure and/or reliability to justify such an expenditure.

So yes, while there are politics and horse trading and bureaucracy of both the companies and the city / state governments involved, I think it does cut pretty evenly, and it streamlines the process of getting the product to the end users. Imagine the taxpayer expenditures of running 2x or 3x as many lines, transformers, substations, and the admin costs associated with managing that much messier grid for a given municipality. That’s what it would take to allow people to switch their utility companies as easily as jumping from Netflix to Hulu, or AT&T to Verizon. And it would all be done for a freedom that probably 99.9% of people don’t really give a crap about. That high cost / low benefit ratio is the actual answer to your question. Juice ain’t worth the squeeze.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

I guess I misunderstood the phrasing. It seemed like maybe you had a property at or near the interface of 2 different utility companies’ service areas (based on “100 yards apart”), and wanted to know why you couldn’t choose either service? I was particularly curious if you had a compelling reason to choose one or the other.

To play devil’s advocate, let’s set aside the fact that there are defined usage areas, with Public Service Commissions, etc. - and you’re either in one or the other. Let’s pretend that its open kimono, but you still have to account for added infrastructure for T-ing into an existing service area that’s not your “base” service.

Say you live on the south side of a street. Your utility provider is Company A. The houses on the north side of the street are Company B. You decide that you like Company B better for whatever reason. Let’s say you have underground utilities, which for this particular example is probably the most simple and straightforward case study.

So, you decide you’re switching to Company B. You call Company B to tell them you want to start using them. Company B says, “OK great, but its going to take a minute. First I need you to fill out this paperwork, then you also have to pay this New Service one-time fee of $X to start the process”. Then they are going to have to get permits / approvals to do excavation, additional line hook up, concrete cutting and patching to run under the road and sidewalk, etc. Then they are going to have to reach out to your current utility company to get a map of the lot showing their line locations and hazard areas. Then they’re going to have to dig up your yard, hook up a new meter, and then have an electrician switch over the service point at the property.

That’s all going to cost Company B a hell of a lot of money, which really means its going to cost YOU a lot of money. And that is the most simple, straightforward, and hassle free way of theoretically going outside your normal service area. I really don’t believe there are any 2 utility companies in the south that are so wildly different in price structure and/or reliability to justify such an expenditure.

So yes, while there are politics and horse trading and bureaucracy of both the companies and the city / state governments involved, I think it does cut pretty evenly, and it streamlines the process of getting the product to the end users. Imagine the taxpayer expenditures of running 2x or 3x as many lines, transformers, substations, and the admin costs associated with managing that much messier grid for a given municipality. That’s what it would take to allow people to switch their utility companies as easily as jumping from Netflix to Hulu, or AT&T to Verizon. And it would all be done for a freedom that probably 99.9% of people don’t really give a crap about. That high cost / low benefit ratio is the actual answer to your question. Juice ain’t worth the squeeze.

Naw man. 17 your logic. Blame the government

in all seriousness, it’s a very good example. I tried to tell this clown that infrastructure costs but he’s all like muh goatz1!!

 

[paindonthurt]

I guess I misunderstood the phrasing. It seemed like maybe you had a property at or near the interface of 2 different utility companies’ service areas (based on “100 yards apart”), and wanted to know why you couldn’t choose either service? I was particularly curious if you had a compelling reason to choose one or the other.

To play devil’s advocate, let’s set aside the fact that there are defined usage areas, with Public Service Commissions, etc. - and you’re either in one or the other. Let’s pretend that its open kimono, but you still have to account for added infrastructure for T-ing into an existing service area that’s not your “base” service.

Say you live on the south side of a street. Your utility provider is Company A. The houses on the north side of the street are Company B. You decide that you like Company B better for whatever reason. Let’s say you have underground utilities, which for this particular example is probably the most simple and straightforward case study.

So, you decide you’re switching to Company B. You call Company B to tell them you want to start using them. Company B says, “OK great, but its going to take a minute. First I need you to fill out this paperwork, then you also have to pay this New Service one-time fee of $X to start the process”. Then they are going to have to get permits / approvals to do excavation, additional line hook up, concrete cutting and patching to run under the road and sidewalk, etc. Then they are going to have to reach out to your current utility company to get a map of the lot showing their line locations and hazard areas. Then they’re going to have to dig up your yard, hook up a new meter, and then have an electrician switch over the service point at the property.

That’s all going to cost Company B a hell of a lot of money, which really means its going to cost YOU a lot of money. And that is the most simple, straightforward, and hassle free way of theoretically going outside your normal service area. I really don’t believe there are any 2 utility companies in the south that are so wildly different in price structure and/or reliability to justify such an expenditure.

So yes, while there are politics and horse trading and bureaucracy of both the companies and the city / state governments involved, I think it does cut pretty evenly, and it streamlines the process of getting the product to the end users. Imagine the taxpayer expenditures of running 2x or 3x as many lines, transformers, substations, and the admin costs associated with managing that much messier grid for a given municipality. That’s what it would take to allow people to switch their utility companies as easily as jumping from Netflix to Hulu, or AT&T to Verizon. And it would all be done for a freedom that probably 99.9% of people don’t really give a crap about. That high cost / low benefit ratio is the actual answer to your question. Juice ain’t worth the squeeze.

TLDR

There is one point and one point only. WHY? Why can’t either company provide me service if they both are willing? There is no justifiable overall reasoning as to why. There might be some individual valid points but there is no overall compelling group of reasons as to why they both shouldn’t be allowed to offer service if they want to.

 

[paindonthurt]

Naw man. 17 your logic. Blame the government

in all seriousness, it’s a very good example. I tried to tell this clown that infrastructure costs but he’s all like muh goatz1!!

I realize you still don’t get it bc you are sporting a tiny tiny IQ.

It doesn’t surprise any of us though.

 

[Pookieray]

The record would be documentation of it being exposed. Arrests, firings, convictions, etc etc.

I would think that something so blatantly illegal would be easily exposed over and over and over. Town after town.

So in your mind the members of Congress that make $174k and own multiple properties in some of the most expensive areas of the US are just so great at $ management and nothing shady has happened because they haven't been exposed? You really do live in a Utopia. You'd be in total shock if you moved from there!

 

[Mr. Cook]

I can’t choose between 2 energy companies that are within 100 yds of where I need energy/power?

Make that make sense for me.

Private sector inefficiency. Crappy contractors.

 

[Boom Boom]

TLDR

Proof you are stupid

There is one point and one point only.

that is never the case

WHY?

You were told why

Why can’t either company provide me service if they both are willing?

1) they have chosen a scheme that divides up territory.
2) ignoring 1, only 1 of them owns the lines that gets the electricity to you
3) other than that, they absolutely can
4) you are clowning yourself

There is no justifiable overall reasoning as to why.

you were given justifiable overall resoning. The facts don't care about your feelings.

There might be some individual valid points

Lol

but there is no overall compelling group of reasons as to why they both shouldn’t be allowed to offer service if they want to.

Sure their is. Profit and efficiency. Competing with each other just means they spend more money for a lower profit margin. They would both pay for lines to your house but then compete on price to sell to you, with only one generating profit, that is smaller than now. If that is the regulatory scheme in play, they go build elsewhere!

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

Power companies have agreed upon territories that they provide power within their boundaries and they all agree to those terms. It’s done that way so you don’t have power lines crossing everywhere because Bob down the road doesn’t like Entergy and wants Tallahatchie Valley to provide him power from 2 miles away.

Our farm shop is on Entergy because it’s run along the highway. Coahoma Electric has poles that run down the other road our shop is on by the highway and crosses over behind our shop to continue south. The poles are literally 20 feet behind the building. We can’t call Coahoma and ask for service because it’s not in their agreed upon territory.

It’s really that simple.

 

[PooPopsBaldHead]

TLDR

There is one point and one point only. WHY? Why can’t either company provide me service if they both are willing? There is no justifiable overall reasoning as to why. There might be some individual valid points but there is no overall compelling group of reasons as to why they both shouldn’t be allowed to offer service if they want to.

Not sure what you are going on about. But only one company or entity is going to provide you service unless you have 2 sets of power lines running to your house. You could potentially buy energy if you lived in a "deregulated" market, but service is the infrastructure and all it takes to build/maintain it. The "open or deregulated" aspect is when you can buy an allotment of energy from a for profit reseller of electricity or gas generation, in the case of electricity they are known as retail electric providers or REP's.

Someone has to own, service, and maintain the lines from the substation to your house. It would be a complete cluster17 if you had multiple entities managing local transmission lines.

Texas is the king of deregulated or open electricity and it's a 17ing mess. You pay a delivery company (like Oncor or Center point) to maintain the regional transmission lines and then you buy electricity from a Retail Electric Provider (REP) like TXU or Reliant. They buy big blocks of electricity from generators. These are for profit companies that pay shareholders and executives a lot of money. They run expensive ad campaigns. And when it gets cold or hot, they generally suck a big fat cóck.

Only 15% of Texas is in a regulated or not "open" market. I lived in both. Service and pricing back then was and apparently still is better in the regulated market where the Co-op sold us the electricity and managed the transmission lines.



I now live in a completely regulated market and have the cheapest and most reliable electricity I have seen in my life. Careful what you ask for.

 

[paindonthurt]

Private sector inefficiency. Crappy contractors.

Haha add you to the list of double digit IQs

 

[paindonthurt]

Proof you are stupid

that is never the case

You were told why

1) they have chosen a scheme that divides up territory.
2) ignoring 1, only 1 of them owns the lines that gets the electricity to you
3) other than that, they absolutely can
4) you are clowning yourself

you were given justifiable overall resoning. The facts don't care about your feelings.

Lol

Sure their is. Profit and efficiency. Competing with each other just means they spend more money for a lower profit margin. They would both pay for lines to your house but then compete on price to sell to you, with only one generating profit, that is smaller than now. If that is the regulatory scheme in play, they go build elsewhere!

You clearly don’t know what you are talking about.

In my example they already share lines. But they can’t compete outside their territory.

 

[paindonthurt]

Power companies have agreed upon territories that they provide power within their boundaries and they all agree to those terms. It’s done that way so you don’t have power lines crossing everywhere because Bob down the road doesn’t like Entergy and wants Tallahatchie Valley to provide him power from 2 miles away.

Our farm shop is on Entergy because it’s run along the highway. Coahoma Electric has poles that run down the other road our shop is on by the highway and crosses over behind our shop to continue south. The poles are literally 20 feet behind the building. We can’t call Coahoma and ask for service because it’s not in their agreed upon territory.

It’s really that simple.

I understand how it works. I’m asking why? None of those are good reasons as to why.

The only good reason I’ve heard is that they are given a territory without competition and in return they have to provide power to all in that territory at the same rate/kwh. I can understand that.

But if you are given a guaranteed amount in sales, you should be limited on what you can make percent wise to the bottom line.

entergy corp put 29% in ebitda as a percent of sales in 2022.

 

[paindonthurt]

Not sure what you are going on about. But only one company or entity is going to provide you service unless you have 2 sets of power lines running to your house. You could potentially buy energy if you lived in a "deregulated" market, but service is the infrastructure and all it takes to build/maintain it. The "open or deregulated" aspect is when you can buy an allotment of energy from a for profit reseller of electricity or gas generation, in the case of electricity they are known as retail electric providers or REP's.

Someone has to own, service, and maintain the lines from the substation to your house. It would be a complete cluster17 if you had multiple entities managing local transmission lines.

Texas is the king of deregulated or open electricity and it's a 17ing mess. You pay a delivery company (like Oncor or Center point) to maintain the regional transmission lines and then you buy electricity from a Retail Electric Provider (REP) like TXU or Reliant. They buy big blocks of electricity from generators. These are for profit companies that pay shareholders and executives a lot of money. They run expensive ad campaigns. And when it gets cold or hot, they generally suck a big fat cóck.View attachment 526874

Only 15% of Texas is in a regulated or not "open" market. I lived in both. Service and pricing back then was and apparently still is better in the regulated market where the Co-op sold us the electricity and managed the transmission lines.


View attachment 526869
I now live in a completely regulated market and have the cheapest and most reliable electricity I have seen in my life. Careful what you ask for.

They share lines all the time.

 

[aTotal360]

I now live in a completely regulated market and have the cheapest and most reliable electricity I have seen in my life. Careful what you ask for.

I firmly believe that is because you are close to the source and because you have fewer bureaucrats to feed.

Your boy brought up Chiraq as an example. If that's your watermark...

 

[OG Goat Holder]

Power companies have agreed upon territories that they provide power within their boundaries and they all agree to those terms. It’s done that way so you don’t have power lines crossing everywhere because Bob @paindonthurt down the road doesn’t like Entergy and wants Tallahatchie Valley to provide him power from 2 miles away.

Fixed that for you.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

I understand how it works. I’m asking why? None of those are good reasons as to why.

The only good reason I’ve heard is that they are given a territory without competition and in return they have to provide power to all in that territory at the same rate/kwh. I can understand that.

But if you are given a guaranteed amount in sales, you should be limited on what you can make percent wise to the bottom line.

entergy corp put 29% in ebitda as a percent of sales in 2022.

All I can tell you is what I see. We also have a ton of electric irrigation wells on both Coahoma Electric and Entergy and the kilowatt per hour is very very close so it’s not like we are getting ripped off by one and not the other. I do like that if something goes wrong or a line is down when I call Coahoma it’s someone in Tunica that’s not far away and may actually know who we are and know what we are talking about. Entergy not so much.

 

[Perd Hapley]

TLDR

There is one point and one point only. WHY? Why can’t either company provide me service if they both are willing? There is no justifiable overall reasoning as to why. There might be some individual valid points but there is no overall compelling group of reasons as to why they both shouldn’t be allowed to offer service if they want to.

Ok here’s a shorter answer. Because they aren’t both willing. Easier? The reasons they aren’t is because there is no legit business case for them (or for you) to run dedicated infrastructure outside of their established areas.

The question in principle is no different than asking why you can’t send your child to a public school 2 counties away, or why you can’t drive through the middle of the neighborhood park instead on the road provided to exit your subdivision. Utilities are a public service and you use the publicly provided infrastructure for your area to suit your needs. You seem to be pursuing some form of guerilla capitalism that even Ronald Reagan himself would find silly.

 

[Villagedawg]

Sounds like many of the “capitalists” in this thread never took intro macro-economics.

 

[PooPopsBaldHead]

I firmly believe that is because you are close to the source and because you have fewer bureaucrats to feed.

Your boy brought up Chiraq as an example. If that's your watermark...

No idea what you are talking about with Chiraq.

I gave an example in the post. In Texas, the largest deregulated market in the US and the capital of nat gas production, electricity is 15-20% cheaper in the regulated areas. And you don't get much closer to the source than Texas when it comes to energy production. In 2017 when I moved 15 miles from a deregulated to regulated area within Texas, my electric rate dropped from $.12 to $.10 per KWH. It's hard to argue that has to do with anything other than the economies of scale by having one entity responsible for the energy and delivery.


I might be the biggest free market person on this board... But that's the problem with electricity, water, school vouchers,etc. If gubment (taxpayer) money is spent on something, the crooked BS and government waste is already happening. If you then tack on for profit free market private stuff it's worse. The private business not only needs it's profit, it has to outbid it's competition for the politicians. Private or public work better than trying to combine both. I prefer private whenever possible.

The problem with private in basic services is as a business owner interested in making money so I am only going to service profitable areas... Aka population centers. If we completely privatize water, education, electricity, and hospitals, rural America is 17'd.

WSJ article on Deregulated Texas Market

 

[Boom Boom]

You clearly don’t know what you are talking about.

In my example they already share lines. But they can’t compete outside their territory.

They share lines BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT COMPETING. Again, why would they let a competitor use their lines to undercut their prices? Do you understand the single first thing about business?

 

[Boom Boom]

I understand how it works. I’m asking why? None of those are good reasons as to why.

The only good reason I’ve heard is that they are given a territory without competition and in return they have to provide power to all in that territory at the same rate/kwh. I can understand that.

But if you are given a guaranteed amount in sales, you should be limited on what you can make percent wise to the bottom line.

entergy corp put 29% in ebitda as a percent of sales in 2022.

He's starting to get it!

 

[Mr. Cook]

Haha add you to the list of double digit IQs

Haha. Add you to the list of crappy contractors cheating hard-working Mississippians out their tax dollars with your inefficiency

 

[Mr. Cook]

You clearly don’t know what you are talking about.

In my example they already share lines. But they can’t compete outside their territory.

Any other examples? Or just the one?

 

[Mr. Cook]

I realize you still don’t get it bc you are sporting a tiny tiny IQ.

It doesn’t surprise any of us though.

Who is “us?”

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

Who is “us?”

He identifies as multiple people. They/them**

 

[Johnnie Come Lately]

I think there are probably several factors that simply make a regulated utility the most efficient way for people to use electricity. Rural water systems are very good comparable examples. How much sense would it make for two or three different water systems to service the same area? The cost of the distribution system is so high that one system would have to service all of the available customers in order to cover overhead OR raise their water rates significantly. If they raise prices, people would switch. Ultimately, the two or three systems would consolidate into a single one because that its the most efficient way. You end up with the same answer.

Electricity is a commodity - a kilowatt of electricity generated at Grand Gulf is identical to a kilowatt produced at a TVA dam. It it going to power your home or business just the same. It's not like internet service where you can have different speeds or cable where you can have different packages / channels.

It's not practical to have multiple transmission lines just so Earl and Ethel in Mathiston can have the freedom to pick between TVA and Entergy. On the contrary, its not practical for everyone in Mathiston and for everyone who pass through to buy gasoline (another commodity) from the same store, so the market has determined that multiple stations are needed - so Shell, Exxon, etc. have built gas stations.

ETA - I will also add that you being within 100 yards of two different electricity providers is the exception, not the norm. They are not going to change the entire system or make an exception just because you're special.

 

[Perd Hapley]

On the contrary, its not practical for everyone in Mathiston and for everyone who pass through to buy gasoline (another commodity) from the same store, so the market has determined that multiple stations are needed - so Shell, Exxon, etc. have built gas stations.

Ah come on….there’s not THAT many people driving through Mathiston. They could get by with one gas station. Make it a Buccee’s if necessary***

 

[Maroon Eagle]

He identifies as multiple people. They/them**

PDH comes across as the most narcissistic piece of şħìt with no warmth and charm on this board— and likely hates the government because the unfortunate gubmint employees who have to deal with him likely perceive him as being the same way so they take their sweet time responding to him…

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

PDH comes across as the most narcissistic piece of şħìt with no warmth and charm on this board— and likely hates the government because the unfortunate gubmint employees who have to deal with him likely perceive him as being the same way so they take their sweet time responding to him…

 

[johnson86-1]

TLDR

There is one point and one point only. WHY? Why can’t either company provide me service if they both are willing? There is no justifiable overall reasoning as to why. There might be some individual valid points but there is no overall compelling group of reasons as to why they both shouldn’t be allowed to offer service if they want to.

You think there is no overall reason and that 99% of the country just happened on a solution that no sense?

there are places that do retail choice now and it’s fine (it’s not really deregulation; still a **** ton of regulation, just aimed at making providers compete on service outside of the infrastructure). I think I’d prefer more places move that way, although if you really let utilities compete, you’d see a lot of people choosing rates that didn’t assure them energy when the market gets tight. So most retail choice schemes try to stop those plans from being offered, so right out of the bat they’re removing a potentially huge savings because they don’t trust consumers (probably rightly).

there are times when utility prices vary significantly, generally because of fuel mix. It would be nice t for consumers on the edge to be able to pick, but paying their fair share of fixed costs for two different utilities would swamp any savings.

 

[MSUDOG24]

Ok here’s a shorter answer. Because they aren’t both willing. Easier? The reasons they aren’t is because there is no legit business case for them (or for you) to run dedicated infrastructure outside of their established areas.

The question in principle is no different than asking why you can’t send your child to a public school 2 counties away, or why you can’t drive through the middle of the neighborhood park instead on the road provided to exit your subdivision. Utilities are a public service and you use the publicly provided infrastructure for your area to suit your needs. You seem to be pursuing some form of guerilla capitalism that even Ronald Reagan himself would find silly.

After 2 pages I'm going to take a WAG that PDH isn't really looking for an explanation.

Honestly surprised no one did anything with this line during the thread ..... "Make that make sense for me".

 

[Villagedawg]

I think there are probably several factors that simply make a regulated utility the most efficient way for people to use electricity. Rural water systems are very good comparable examples. How much sense would it make for two or three different water systems to service the same area? The cost of the distribution system is so high that one system would have to service all of the available customers in order to cover overhead OR raise their water rates significantly. If they raise prices, people would switch. Ultimately, the two or three systems would consolidate into a single one because that its the most efficient way. You end up with the same answer.

Electricity is a commodity - a kilowatt of electricity generated at Grand Gulf is identical to a kilowatt produced at a TVA dam. It it going to power your home or business just the same. It's not like internet service where you can have different speeds or cable where you can have different packages / channels.

It's not practical to have multiple transmission lines just so Earl and Ethel in Mathiston can have the freedom to pick between TVA and Entergy. On the contrary, its not practical for everyone in Mathiston and for everyone who pass through to buy gasoline (another commodity) from the same store, so the market has determined that multiple stations are needed - so Shell, Exxon, etc. have built gas stations.

This guy gets it.

 

[Mr. Cook]

After 2 pages I'm going to take a WAG that PDH isn't really looking for an explanation.

Honestly surprised no one did anything with this line during the thread ..... "Make that make sense for me".

Let's be honest: PDH is the "Andrew Dice Clay" of SPS

@Maroon Eagle

 

[Mr. Cook]

Haha add you to the list of double digit IQs

 

[Mr. Cook]

He's starting to get it!

Au contraire, mon frere.....he'll NEVER get it

 

[ronpolk]

After 2 pages I'm going to take a WAG that PDH isn't really looking for an explanation.

Honestly surprised no one did anything with this line during the thread ..... "Make that make sense for me".

Is he ever really looking for an explanation. All the guy does is come here and pick fights with people. There is no way he talks to people he encounters regularly the way he talks to people on this board. He would have already had his *** whipped by now.

 

[Mr. Cook]

Is he ever really looking for an explanation. All the guy does is come here and pick fights with people. There is no way he talks to people he encounters regularly the way he talks to people on this board. He would have already had his *** whipped by now.

He is the SPS version of "Jim" on "The Paul Finebaum Show"

 

[dudehead]

Sounds like many of the “capitalists” in this thread never took intro macro-economics.

No idea what you are talking about with Chiraq.

I gave an example in the post. In Texas, the largest deregulated market in the US and the capital of nat gas production, electricity is 15-20% cheaper in the regulated areas. And you don't get much closer to the source than Texas when it comes to energy production. In 2017 when I moved 15 miles from a deregulated to regulated area within Texas, my electric rate dropped from $.12 to $.10 per KWH. It's hard to argue that has to do with anything other than the economies of scale by having one entity responsible for the energy and delivery.


I might be the biggest free market person on this board... But that's the problem with electricity, water, school vouchers,etc. If gubment (taxpayer) money is spent on something, the crooked BS and government waste is already happening. If you then tack on for profit free market private stuff it's worse. The private business not only needs it's profit, it has to outbid it's competition for the politicians. Private or public work better than trying to combine both. I prefer private whenever possible.

The problem with private in basic services is as a business owner interested in making money so I am only going to service profitable areas... Aka population centers. If we completely privatize water, education, electricity, and hospitals, rural America is 17'd.

WSJ article on Deregulated Texas Market

Thank you. We need more level headed folks like you as the collective leading voice.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

Let's be honest: PDH is the "Andrew Dice Clay" of SPS

@Maroon Eagle

That’s too cruel to the Diceman.

 

[MSUDOG24]

He is the SPS version of "Jim" on "The Paul Finebaum Show"

LOL, great analogy.