I am not to familiar with Enron, I know the basics, but I was wondering if anyone had a good criqtue of this video. The videos main point is that degegulation caused Enron to exploit California, and basically shows the congressman as the heros of the whole ordeal(if you seen it you know what I mean). One interviewi even says that the free market causes prices to rise. Furthermore they say since Lay and Stilling were "pro free market" it must have been the markets fault. Which I know is bs. Now I know most of this is stupid but if any of you can reinforce me, or correct me, that would be appreciated.
Thanks
It's not harsh when you see the pattern of lies. Time for him to shape up or be shipped out.
Taras Smereka: @Ixtellor can you show an example of where the premises of an Austrian argument were true and the conclusion/prediction was false? Because if you could, that would invalidate the argument form, if not undermine deduction and therefore science as a whole.
@Ixtellor can you show an example of where the premises of an Austrian argument were true and the conclusion/prediction was false? Because if you could, that would invalidate the argument form, if not undermine deduction and therefore science as a whole.
1) If you mean the very basic a priori that it is based upon, then no. It is unfalsifiable. (I can't disprove man acts to improve satisfaction/ Furthermore I don't disagree)
2) If you mean an Austrian theorist/philosopher/economist made a prediction that was wrong. For example hyperinflation. I imagine you, and if you read all the articles they DO, will blame some other form of government coersion.
Your prediction: "X will happen". When "Y" happens instead, you can point to unforseen government action "Z" which made your prediction untrue, not that the predicition itself was flawed. And since there is always governnment actions...
Ixtellor
Ixtellor:2) If you mean an Austrian theorist/philosopher/economist made a prediction that was wrong. For example hyperinflation. I imagine you, and if you read all the articles they DO, will blame some other form of government coersion. Your prediction: "X will happen". When "Y" happens instead, you can point to unforseen government action "Z" which made your prediction untrue, not that the predicition itself was flawed. And since there is always governnment actions...
Well duh...
And if I use Newton's dynamics to predict the trajectory of a ball I'm about to throw, and it flies somewhere else, I can always point to an unforseen factor like changing wind that made my prediction untrue, not that the prediction itself was flawed. And since there will always be changing winds...
Knight_of_BAAWA:It's not harsh when you see the pattern of lies. Time for him to shape up or be shipped out.
1) California announces they are going to deregulate PARTS of their energy supply by breaking up their publicly owned utilities and selling them off.
The bill is written in 1995, and is passed in 1996. The legislation is subject to the freedom of information act. Anyone can read it.
2) Thomas DiLorenzo (The "austrian" expert) writes an article at the end of 1996 that gets published in which he predicts that "Competition will initially save at least $40 billion per year" after which "new technologies will be developed because of the lower energy costs"
3) Energy costs go up. For a large variety of factors, NOT explained in the "Myth of California Energy" deregulation written once again by... Thomas DiLorenzo. These include: Enron was manipulating supply, California was GROWING thus more people = more demand for energy, a major rupture in a natural gas pipeline that reduced supply, abnormally high temperatures = more air conditioning = more demand for energy, etc etc etc.
So In addition to giving an incomplete answer and glossing over other non-governmental factors, (does the government control the weather?), Thomas DiLorenzo puts almost all the blame on government intervention. The same government intervention that was WRITTEN into the original legislation.The same legislation that Thomas DiLorenzo supposedly read and concluded would result in massive savings.
If the legislation didn't change, and he read it, and a large number of non-governmental factors contributed to the energy supply in California, why is he putting almost all the blame on government? If he actually read the legislation and saw that several other energy factors and segments were still going to be subject to government monopoly powers... why did he predict savings? Why in 1996 did he predict savings based on the very facts, he is blaming for the collapse today?
YEA... I'm the liar in here.
Carter: The agencies who removed the law in regards to wholesale prices did say they were deregulating.
1) See my post above.
2) The legislation was very clear about what was going to be deregulated. Thomas DiLozano who wrote about the legislation and made predictions about its outcome, presumably read it. Based on the legislation and his own philosophy of markets, he predicited "initial savings of $40 billion".
3) My theory is that he Didn't read the legislation. That he heard them say "deregulate" and made the false assumption it was a totally deregulated market.
Lets assume he did read it, and lets assume the legislation was a total LIE -- just fancy language meant to trick us. Where does the busted natural gas pipeline, high temperatures, and Enron manipulating supply enter into his 'explanation' of what was going on? I submit, that he purposefully left it out (he did just barely touch on Enron's crimes) to fit his political and philosophical agenda of "blame government".
P.S. Thank you for the defense of my intentions and the appeal to reason.
Ixtellor:1) California announces they are going to deregulate PARTS
Now then, if you have anything of import to say, I suggest you say it. Otherwise, you're sliding toward the door. Lying will not be tolerated, do you understand? If not, leave now.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Yep, and instituted new regulations (including retail price controls--one of the MAJOR factors for the crisis) on other parts. Thank you very much for admitting that it's the fault of government.
1) Stop making attacks you can't back up. (personal attacks your only MO)
2) Your lying and I am going to prove it. (Where you just like to make baseless attacks, I will back mine up)
3) Here is a copy of the originial Bill.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/95-96/bill/asm/ab_1851-1900/ab_1890_bill_960924_chaptered.pdf
Here is some of the important language that proves my assertion beyond denial.
Regulated IOU rates for agricultural, residential, industrial, and large commercial customers were frozen at their June 1996, levels until utilities recover their generation related uneconomic costs through the competitive transition charge or until March 31, 2002, whichever is earlier
Starting January 1, 1998, rates for residential and small commercial customers (defined as 20 kilowatts or less peak demand) were reduced by 10 percent and will remain at that level until utilities recover their generation related uneconomic costs through the competitive transition charge, or until March 31, 2002, whichever is earlier.
This[Generation Services] is the only portion of electricity restructuring that is open to competition at this time.
4) In irrefutible conclusion: The price freezes and mandatory price reductions were in the original bill. The fact that only generation was being deregulated was in the original bill. Therefore, For Thomas DiLorenzo to say that we would see "Initial savings of $40 billion" and later say "I got it wrong because california had price freezes and energy regulation" is totally intellectually dishonest. All that language was in the bill. Why didn't he predict failure and higher prices?
5) I invite anyone to read this all for themselves, do their own research and determine who is lying here. Me or Knight_of_BAWAA, the answer will be perfectly clear.
P.S. I wonder if you will delete the post because it soo clearly demonstrates you were wrong.
Ixtellor:1) Stop making attacks
Wasn't that too harsh? I found Ixtellor's comments to be quite intriguing. Why ban him instead of looking at the details?
Ixtellor: 4) In irrefutible conclusion: The price freezes and mandatory price reductions were in the original bill. The fact that only generation was being deregulated was in the original bill. Therefore, For Thomas DiLorenzo to say that we would see "Initial savings of $40 billion" and later say "I got it wrong because california had price freezes and energy regulation" is totally intellectually dishonest. All that language was in the bill. Why didn't he predict failure and higher prices?
Are you sure he was working from the final copy of the bill? It wouldn't be unusual at all to have a release or proposal that changes.
Sphairon: Wasn't that too harsh? I found Ixtellor's comments to be quite intriguing. Why ban him instead of looking at the details?
I concur.
Sphairon:Wasn't that too harsh?
Why the ban? I don't get it.
Because he refuses to actually address anything but side issues. I've seen it in every thread he's in. He's been trolling and lying for too long.
End of discussion.