So if Accenture gets their cut of profits (as any private business does), and BCTC gets their cut in profits, then how would that contribute to the bottom line of BC Hydro.

One thing the BC liberals have never explained is what the benefits were for these privatization schemes, and how those are measured, and if they indeed had measurable reasons for such a drastic change of long standing provincial policy... if so what where those and can we now re-evaluate for its effectiveness. If the bottom line is rates they haven't gone down?

I still do not think the argument was ever made to the people of BC for the BC Hydro break up... it was just done because there was no opposition to stop it. Ditto for BC Rail privatization.

Also I have no problem with a person having an editorial opinion when stated as an opinion and not as stated fact. I think a guy like Lou Dobbs is actually more of a real reporter than anything else you'll find on CNN.

Actual I think the BCTC I figure was done so as to get around same cost billing if thats the term? So they wanted to bill less for urban Vancouver residents and increase the billing to rural users, because its the urban areas where the BC government is formed, so therefor they formed BCTC and the urban politicians joined with the northern liberal politicians in making it so.

The urbanites bought the argument that why should they subsidize the rural user who's infrastructure costs more to build and maintain many power poles when on the other hand the urbanites are just connected to the wall. The urbanite argument was supported by the northern liberal MLA's and the break up of BC Hydro was set into motion so Vancouver could get lower rates in the short term.

I'm with you, Rafe

When B.C Hydro is completely privatized your power interruptions will be more frequent and prolonged.A contractor will hesitate to bring in a crew on overtime if the normal shift is only and hour or two away. Also if you look at a place like Wells B.C. in 40 years when the present poles need replacing, the typical contractor will simply say there are not enough customers too justify the cost and walk away leaving Wells in the dark.
Boardroom decisions are about dividends not customer satisfaction.

When will we start to listen? And as long as we dont the big corporations and the banks will continute to rip us off. Will we waite untill we are a third world country?

The cost of a 20# bag of whole wheat flour jumped from 6 bucks to 11 in a matter of weeks at Superstore.

Cheers

How will we attract industry without cheap power?

Posted by: govsux on June 12 2008 10:36 AM
How will we attract industry without cheap power?
Mark my word this will be anything but cheap power.
Do some research on the sweet heart deal the province wants to give Alcan.
Look at ALBERTA power rates. Look what Enron did to California. If run of the river projects proceed expect a run on your wallet to pay your power bill.

How will we attract industry without cheap power?

Bridge:- "The cost of a 20# bag of whole wheat flour jumped from 6 bucks to 11 in a matter of weeks at Superstore."

While our brilliant Federal government prepares to spend 50 million of our tax dollars in an effort to RAISE the price of pork to a level where Canadian pork producers can supposedly again recover their costs of production.

They are proposing a subsidy to the hog producers to destroy 10% of their breeding stock, and essentially 'plow it under'. (It can be made into pet food, or processed and given to Food Banks, if anyone can be found to do the processing for nothing! In a "government approved" slaughterhouse and packing plant only, of course.)

Does it ever dawn on them that the same 50 million might be better spent subsidizing farmers to keep the price of pork LOW, and maybe even LOWER it further, to allow consumers to "clear the market" by making pork cheaper to them? What does it matter to the farmer, so long as he gets his costs back, and a reasonable return for his efforts? And to us? The 50 million is gone anyways ~ might as well get 'something' for it.

This is reminiscent of the type of stories that came out of the great Depression of the 1930's. Coffee being dumped at sea, grain being burned, milk poured down the sewers, farmers being paid by governments NOT to grow certain crops. People starving, simply as a result of a 'financial' poverty in the midst of 'physical' plenty.

And what did they do then? The same thing we're doing now, with the price of that bag of flour, or a roast of pork, or electricty prices. We move to make the 'physical' plenty scarce. So we can have a 'physical' poverty that matches the 'financial' one!

One story I read of that era was of a shipload of fresh oranges being thrown overboard off England, while many people living there then were so poorly nourished cases of rickets were regularly being reported.

All in an effort to "get the price up." Even though those who would've gladly consumed all those oranges COULDN'T AFFORD THEM with the prices "down".

Strange the hold that mere "figures" have over human beings. In 1931 the British government fell because its desire to pay relief to the huge numbers of unemployed would've 'unbalanced' that nation's budget by 12 million pounds A YEAR, and it was felt the nation's creditors (the Banks) would not approve. Winston Churchill stated, "All sound finance is unpleasant finance," as he downed another scotch and soda.

Ten years later, the British budget was being 'unbalanced' to the tune of 7 million pounds A DAY! As Britons and Germans engaged in a vicious struggle to destroy each other. And nary a peep from Winnie, or the Banks, on what constituted "sound finance"!

And so we come to today. Do we REALLY have a shortage of hydro-electric power in BC? Or is it necessary, in the sole interests of "sound finance", to get the prices "up"? Time we took a lot more detailed look at those "figures", if you ask me.

The biggest attraction in 'exporting'power to the USA is that it provides international credits that our Banking system can then multiply by at least ten times as a basis for future loans.

We have a fallacious perception of how banking works. All banking, by its very nature, is "fractional reserve". Most people believe that 'fractional reserve' banking means that the banks lend out some fraction of their customer's deposits.

The usual conception is that, say, if the bank had a reserve policy of a very conservative 30%, then of every $ 1,000 deposited the banker could lend $ 700. And retain the other $ 300 to meet his day-to-day customer demands for cash.

We feel that this is sound, so long as all, or too many of, the bank's customers don't appear all at once to make withdrawals. Of which there's little likelihood ever happening. (The actual " fractional reserve" in most banks now is something less than 10%.)

This isn't quite how it works, however. For, in the example given above, using a 30% reserve, the banker does not ask what's 30% OF the $ 1,000 deposit, but rather what's the $ 1,000 deposit 30% OF. And that's $ 3,333.33. Which is how much 'credit' he can create under the given circumstances on your $ 1,000 deposit (which deposit isn't 'lent' to anyone, in whole or in part, since it is a "Liability" of the bank. And no one borrows 'liabilities', they have enough of their own!)

Since our entire industrial system is NOT fully financially self-liquidating, the only way it can be kept going at present is by a constant increase in bank created credits recorded as debt. So long as this condition remains uncorrected, (it is not difficult to correct),we'll continue to watch the "powers-that-be", no matter which "Party" they represent, knock themselves out trying to gain "export" credits that can be multiplied into more bank loans.

For this reason alone, if for none other, "hydro-electric power", and even the "water" itself, are going to be very much on the table as exportable commodities. ( And, I'm sorry to say, this will be the case whether BC Hydro continues as a Crown corporation, (which I think it should), or whether it's privatized, either in whole in in part.)