• Ithral@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    70
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Would be nice if we could unfuck the US, also if we could take a bit of money from the military to get heat pumps and induction stoves, and just skip the gas

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I agree on the gas for health reasons.

      I really want an outdoor wok burner, because my induction stove just doesn’t get hot enough. I’m used to working with a professional stove that will go up to 700° F. The induction stove won’t get my wok above 500° F.

        • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          I have questions. They specifically say that once available it will run on a 120w or standard outlet, or low power 220w outlet. I don’t know that it would be possible to hit 700° F without a high power 220 outlet.

          • dignick@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            It charges its internal battery from whatever supply you have over the course of a day, then when you are cooking it can operate off the battery alone. So it doesn’t really matter how good your supply is because most home users won’t be cooking all day, so it will charge its battery slowly.

            It has a 3kwh battery, I’m not sure how powerful the inverter is and it depends on supply but it might take an hour or two to charge from flat.

            But it probably couldn’t maintain 700F for an extended period of time. I guess most people won’t need that heat for a long time.

      • The Assman@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        They make a standalone induction burner specifically for a wok (mine came with a wok, but the one I already had works). It’s nice because you don’t have to use a flat bottom one, but it still maxes out at like 550°.

      • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        53
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Oh shit you’re right. There’s no such thing as a societal need, everything ought to be turned into for-profit endeavors that enrich private equity! Don’t just defund the police, let them compete in the free market! Let’s see who has the best ideas! Let’s see if we can create a quadrillionaire! Because isn’t the invisible hand of the market such an inherently appealing idea that we should ignore its failures? Isn’t it fun to think of an economic theory as a great filter?

          • brygphilomena@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            25
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Infrastructure is terrible to use as an example where competition exists.

            We can’t all have 6 different gas lines run to each building or even to each street to choose who to buy from. The distribution will always be common. So either that has to be installed and maintained by a municipality or a single company which then rents it out.

            Competition is also predicated on the concept of low barriers to entry. If it’s nearly impossible for small companies to enter the market place, there effectively never will be competition. We also have seen that money talks, that the power inequality of a big company vs small company means the large company can squeeze the small company out by economies of scale and being able to absorb larger losses until either the smaller company quits or sells to the larger company.

            We can offset a lot of this by putting in strong regulations, pathways for small businesses to enter the market, create and enforce strong anti-monolopy laws, or take ownership of core infrastructure by municipalities.

            You also seem to have the idea that anything state run is inefficient and corrupt, which has just been corporate propaganda. I trust USPS far more than FedEx, UPS, or any other parcel service. They run quickly, efficiently, and against some very harsh regulations which make them fully pre-fund retiree pensions.

            • The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              3 months ago

              Meanwhile FedEx consistently says I wasn’t home when they tried to deliver which is highly interesting because I work from home and never leave my neighborhood on workdays. If they tried to make a delivery I’d see the truck. They just leave the “we missed you” post it without ever ringing the bell or knocking at the door

            • PsychedSy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              14
              ·
              3 months ago

              We can’t all have 6 different gas lines run to each building or even to each street to choose who to buy from.

              Can you think of no other ways to deliver gas than running six pipes?

              When everything becomes electric, we’ll have plenty of utility room to spare. Locking us into a different type of monopoly won’t allow room for innovation or advancement.

              • brygphilomena@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                3 months ago

                The next sentence was about shared infrastructure for the pipes. That multiple gas companies could use to distribute, with the caveat that they still would need to be owned by a single entity whether that’s a private company or municipality. I’d argue a municipality is the correct answer here.

                If we look at electric as an analogous system, the poles and wires are always owned by a single company and then the supply can be “chosen.” Even though it’s just routing where your cash goes, since electricity is all pooled. The downside, is no matter how much I may not want to support the company that owns the poles and wires, I have no other option and there is no way for a competitive company to build another product to give the consumer a choice.

                It’s why I advocate largely for the distribution infrastructure to become public owned, paid for and maintained with taxes. I don’t necessarily agree with the production of the gas/electricity/water. If the distribution infrastructure if publicly owned, then so long as a new business creates a product that matches the regulated quality they only need to pay for the permits and means to attach to the distribution network. We can lower the barrier of entry to new competitors.

                • PsychedSy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  The minimum standards would be set based on regulatory capture in very many municipalities. I don’t think it would be worse than jank monopolies, at least. I don’t know that the speed (or incentives) of either is something I trust with keeping up technologically.

                  Moving from a monopoly to a municipality doesn’t help when the standards they set are super strict.

          • Cowbee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Central planning is not to enrich the elite, lmao. That’s Capitalism.

          • The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            You fundamentally misunderstand what people are calling for. The aim of making utilities public isn’t the enrichment of a small few, its to spread the benefits of society to all who contribute. The core of this is that we want responsible accountability and the best way to do that is to operate with a communal mindset. One in which if we find a political officer is abusing their position of power we can remove them and restore the material wealth stolen to who it belongs to. You’re so used to operating in a system where positions of power go to the already wealthy that you’re assuming that’s what we’re still calling for. Collaborative cooperation has become such a foreign concept to you that you’re completely ignoring that we’re saying utilities and services should enrich no one but society as a whole

          • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Nobody is stopping people from having a commercial option next to a government option.

      • bitfucker@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        3 months ago

        A monopoly run by the government can operate at a loss no problem. Why? Because their job isn’t to make a profit first but to serve the people. Can any private business operate at a loss? And IMHO, utilities are the prime example of what should be owned by the government.

      • thetreesaysbark@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Would you say rampant inefficiencies and cronyism are also present in the private side of things as well though?

        I can certainly imagine that the rich owner of a company is more likely to take a service contract with his rich buddy than with the newbie on the block, and nobody will do anything about it because private.

        Then in terms of inefficiencies, the only thing a private company seems to be able to do efficiently is take money off you, not deliver their service or even customer service.

        At least state services have the opportunity to hold those in charge responsible, if the systems put in place work for the people. In many countries however, this is not the case.

        Therefore it seems like turning companies private is just another bad option. The actual, and perhaps impossible, fix is to resolve the issues in our governing bodies such that our leaders are held accountable.

      • Cowbee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        If the state is run by the workers, and in the interests of the workers without the profit motive, it is soley directed towards providing a service. A capitalist monopoly is directed towards profit alone, and can price control.

  • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    The correct answer to #2 is

    ‘Make it easier to tap the lines safely and steal gas without putting anyone at risk, then die in the revolution.’

  • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Ohio separates distribution from supply. You can’t select the distributor who connects your home to the gas mains, but you can choose from dozens of suppliers who put gas into those mains.

    We do the same with electricity.

    • Raxiel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      This is the same for both gas and electricity (both import and export for those who can) in the UK.
      It generally works quite well, and could be pretty competitive if you knew to shop around. Since Vlad’s 3 days began and natural gas prices spiked the entire market (the companies that survived) has pretty much been at the government price cap. There are some deals starting to re-appear but the main reason to switch right now is customer service. Amazing how much brand loyalty let’s the big firms treat people like shit and get away with it.

      The best deals tend to be time of use for people with smart meters.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Same in the EU. Or at least I think so, it’s the case over here and it’s EU-wide for electricity providers. Water, sewage and garbage disposal are municipal responsibility though there’s no network/provider separation there.

      What’s actually missing is a municipal-level telecom monopoly – again, with separate providers. The last-mile network is just as much a natural monopoly for telecom as it is for other wires or pipes.

      • Sylvartas@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        it’s the case over here and it’s EU-wide for electricity providers

        I find it interesting that this is a good thing in the US and most of Europe, but in France this majorly fucked our electricity market by forcing the (mostly) state funded electricity producer into selling their electricity to some companies that provide no value aside from being an intermediate between the producer and the consumer (they are not required to produce their own electricity to buy some from EDF at a discount, and they are even allowed to sell it to consumers for less money than the lowest price EDF is allowed to charge when they are doing the same thing, because of some dumb regulations I can’t remember).

        All in the name of the free market because “monopoly bad”, even though electricity production and especially distribution is, as you said, a natural monopoly.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          Yeah you can’t combine a market mechanism while telling a production (quasi-)monopolist that they need to fix prices.

          Reminds me of the good ole GDR: They would subsidise bread so that people could always afford it, a completely laudable goal. People also had chickens in their backyard because eggs and meat and when it came to feeding those chickens, they had a look at the prices – and, yeah, the state subsidised bread. Not grain. So they fed the chickens bread as it was cheaper. It’s an easy enough fix, just shift the subsidies but nope, governmental inertia or something prevented them from doing it.

  • Daxtron2@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    Oh sorry we’re going to have to triple your rates. What? No not for anyone else just you. Nothing to do with your feedback though, we value that!

    • bitfucker@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      3 months ago

      And when government fucked up those management, you as a citizen should held your government liable. People shouldn’t be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of their people. Also, the government’s main priority is NOT to make a profit but rather serve the people. So there is a (theoretical) obligation for the government to make sure every citizen has access to their service even if at a loss.

    • Cowbee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      3 months ago

      A government monopoly run by the workers, not for profit but to provide a service, is far better than a private monopoly.

        • Cowbee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          First world countries tend to not be run for the benefit of all. Not that third world countries are either, mind you, but generally removing the profit motive from basic necessities seems to have very positive results on levels of freedom and social mobility.

          • DudeDudenson@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Except when corrupt officials just pocket the money and invest nothing into infrastructure

            Monopolys aren’t good either but living in a third world country I can tell you you can find worse problems with state controlled systems than with private companies that at least have to keep you as a client somehow

            • Cowbee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              Sounds like a problem with how democratically accountable it is, not with it being state run. Privately, this is how it’s supposed to work, haha.

              • DudeDudenson@lemmings.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                In my experience government operated facilities are only accountable to the current government so any political wants or ideologies come first.

                In a for profit situation without a monopoly the company at least has to try to keep you as a client so there’s some give and take.

                Taking a monopoly from a company and putting it in the hands of the state is just as bad in my opinion

                Some problems don’t have a nice for all solution sadly

                • Cowbee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Again, sounds like a government structure issue.

    • zurohki@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yes. Services like gas and water are natural monopolies - it doesn’t make sense to roll out two or three separate lots of distribution pipes, so you always just have one service available to you. The best option is to have them as government owned services.

      • BorgDrone@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        3 months ago

        And yet, I can choose from dozens of different energy companies for electricity and gas.

        • The Cuuuuube@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          3 months ago

          You’re choosing from vendors to deal with the regional vendor. You’re just paying someone to pay the company in your area. The company you pay in this scenario literally offers you zero value. They simply exist to extract money from you.

          Alternatively, these services could be provided to you at a lower cost as part of your annual tax bill under a collaborative cooperative.

          • BorgDrone@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            3 months ago

            You’re choosing from vendors to deal with the regional vendor. You’re just paying someone to pay the company in your area.

            That’s not how it works.

            The price you pay has 2 main components: a fixed component for network costs. This part is always the same and only depends on the type of hookup you have (e.g. an industrial power connection would cost more than a residential one). It goes to the owner of the physical power network (this depends on where you live) who uses it for things like maintenance (and of course a little profit). The network operator does not provide power themselves.

            The variable component is based on your usage and goes to the power company. The power companies provide the actual power to the national grid. While it may be true that the power coming out of my outlets wasn’t produced by the company I’m contracted with, that doesn’t really matter. Electricity is electricity. What matters is that each power company has to provide the amount of energy used by their customers to the national grid. Say company A has 100 customers that on average used 1 kilowatt-hour each, and company B has 50 customers that used the same amount on average. Then company A has to provide 100 kilowatt-hours to the national grid and company B has to provide 50 kilowatt-hours.

            How they provide that power is up to them, and usually varies. The larger energy companies have their own power plants, wind and solar farms. Smaller companies may buy energy in bulk from the larger ones and try to sell it at a profit to consumers. Energy companies may also buy or sell to/from other countries, depending on capacity and demand.

            Point is that they don’t just forward you the bill from a local company, they actually have to provide the power and outside of a few small ‘virtual’ energy companies they do produce that power.

        • candybrie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          How do you send different supplier’s water down the same pipes while making sure customers get the supplier they’re paying for’s water?

          • space@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            3 months ago

            Quite simple actually. The supplier knows how much water it puts in the pipes, and consumers have meters that measure how much water they take out of the pipes.

            Water is water… It doesn’t matter if you’re not getting the exact same water molecules put in by your supplier.

            Think of it like this… You have a jug of water. The supplier puts in a glass of water, and you (the consumer) take out one glass of water. The quantity of water in the jug stays the same, but you pay the supplier for how much water you took out.

            It works the same way with electricity.

            • candybrie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              Tap water is not just water. Water has a bunch of other things in it besides water. The main reason I can think to choose a different water supplier than the cheapest is the water quality. If the cheap supplier is gonna crap up all the water for everyone else, what’s anyone incentive not to go with the cheap supplier? Doesn’t that pretty quickly devolve into a monopoly?

              With electricity, it is just electricity and people have opinions about how that electricity is generated. But even there, it’s usually not a good thing. It leads to high pressure, scammy sales tactics that result in higher bills for no benefit.

              • space@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Can be solved by putting a certain quality requirement for putting water into the pipes. Suppliers can compete on price.

                It’s not realistic to have multiple pipe systems covering the same area. Digging pipes is very expensive. Digging multiple networks of pipes is insane. This solution is the best compromise to have multiple suppliers serve in the same area.

                • candybrie@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  If the only difference is price, how does that not just devolve into a monopoly or shitty sales tactics to try to trick people into paying more for the same product?

              • FrowingFostek@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Hypothetically, what if my electricity, in my shitty profit seeking corporation, cycles inconsistently?

                What if my equipment at my rinky-dink substation fluctuates between something absurd like 40hz to 70hz.

                This would be extremely dirty electricity\ electromagnetic pollution.

                • candybrie@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  If you’re all using the same wires, you’re subjected to those problems even if you don’t contract with them. So multiple suppliers doesn’t fix the issue. It just introduces more suppliers who can have those problems.

                • space@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  That would destroy the entire grid and a lot of equipment. It’s why texas had rolling blackouts a few winters ago, it’s a fine balance between supply and demand to maintain stable voltage and frequency. Failure to do so can result in a LOT of damage. If you don’t have enough supply, you have to reduce demand.

    • koper@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Operated solely in the public interest by publicly accountable individuals

    • jaschen@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Um… I’m perfectly OK with a “monopoly” for my fire fighting services. Why would I feel differently for my utilities services?

        • Sewer_King@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Nothing says punk more than enabling for profit corporations to hold sole ownership of the utilities that we need to continue living in a bare minimum standard of living. /s

        • jaschen@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Please enlighten me on how I can start a utilities company? Make sure you give me details on how I can maximize profits to my shareholders while fucking over my customers.

          Or maybe I should start a non-profit utilities company, and the cost of your services is subsidized by taxpayers’ money. That way, I don’t have to constantly chase capitalism and make life better for my community instead of my shareholders.

        • tomatol@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          We’re talking about basic utilities though. Do you think the average person can start or run such a business? I’m honestly interested in the answer.

            • tomatol@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Good point but I would say it’s hard to monopolize solar power since it’s easy to just buy your own panels. Wheras it’s not feasible to buld your own power plant.

              • Lifter@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Wasn’t that the point though? You’re arguing that small scale power doesn’t exist when it clearly does.

                • tomatol@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  I never said that. Small scale power is always the way to go! Be it small hydro or solar panels!

                  It’s very different to have small localized power and distribution networks than controlling a whole country’s power and then giving that whole network to a private company to manage.

        • Commiunism@lemmy.wtf
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          If the government decides to privatize utilities like electricity/gas or whatever, then sure it is freedom for some rich business owners to open up new businesses. However, this also results in those utilities becoming profit driven (as opposed to being for the public), and literally everyone in the country having to pay much more than they were paying previously.

          My country had electricity privatized around 4 years ago, and in result we have to pay a lot more, not to mention about numerous fraud cases that were all over the news during and after the privatization period.

          If you think that rich business owners being able to open up a couple of business at the expense of fucking over the public is a good thing and being against it is some weird hexbear delusion, then I’d advise you to get out of the libertarian bubble and look at the real world instead.

        • SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          It’s not the people in the solarpunk community (because of federation posts get federated throughout the fediverse) but rather people not noticing the community

        • Cowbee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Freedom to be enslaved is negative freedom.

    • normalexit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      3 months ago

      It is replacing a privately owned, for-profit business with a public utility owned by… the public.

    • Aceticon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Those things are natural monopolies, so the choice isn’t monopoly vs free-market it’s profit-driven-monopoly vs public-good-driven-monopoly.

      Unlike what’s said by the mindless pseudo-Economics bollocks a lot of prople have been indoctrinated with, the upsides for consumers of a Free Market only exist in the subset of markets were there are natural conditions for high levels of competition - which is most definitelly not gas provision to households - and even in those there are still systemic problems such as negative externalities that require some level of regulation.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Distribution is a natural monopoly. Supply is not. Every supplier is putting the same, standardized product in the pipes. If they put a cubic foot in, and I take a cubic foot out, I can call them my supplier, even if they are putting it into the pipeline a thousand miles away from me and there is zero chance I will ever be burning the actual gas they supplied.

        • Aceticon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Indeed, and separating distribution from production is how decent competition is introduced in such markets (there are still barriers to entry related to infrastructure, but they’re nowhere as bad as the ones when the distribution infrastructure is owned by the gas company).

          However, often that’s not how things are in the markets for gas, power and water supply as well as internet access.

          Not only that but in markets were those things are separate the supply companies will try as hard as they can to get their hands on the distribution side (for obvious reasons), and, well, neoliberal politicians are usually happy to let them. The natural tendency in an unregulated market in those things is for sooner or later to end up in a winner-takes-all situation were one of the suppliers got it’s hands on the distribution side and used it to create a monopoly position, if only locally.

          It’s a funny thing about the so-called “Free Market” in domains were it is possible for businesses to directly or indirectly create the conditions for natural monopolies: without actual intervention from an outside strong and independent actor (i.e. a governmental power with the will to intervene) such markets sooner or later end up naturally not being free anymore.

          Market actors activelly and constantly seek a dominant position so if there are conditions for a monopoly (the most dominant position there is) one will eventually succeed and if there aren’t but there are for the next best thing (a cartel) a handful of them will eventually succeed.