Cui bono?

Beginning Monday, the average electric bill for the average household in Delaware will go up 59 percent. That works out to more than $620 a year.

This huge spike is the result of electricity deregulation, which was introduced as a measure that would lower the cost for consumers. Deregulation was celebrated as a triumph over the costly inefficiencies of "big government."

This claim was, it turns out, a con. This is not surprising. It's always a con when questions of the proper role and function of government are reduced to the simplistic cartoon of Big vs. Small. Whenever you hear someone railing against "big government," keep an eye on your wallet.

I work in Delaware, but I don't live there. That means I'm not facing this 59 percent increase in my utility bill, but it also means that I have a longish commute, and the cost of that drive to work has increased by a lot more than 59 percent over the past year.

Delawareans, of course, are also paying these higher gas prices. They were already angry about that before they learned about this sudden increase in their electric bills, and now they're even angrier.

Much of that anger is directed at Delmarva Power/Conectiv, but there's still plenty left over for the state government, which is increasingly viewed as more interested in the interests of business than in the interests of the public.

A "throw the bums out" storm cloud is gathering over Delaware's legislature this election year. No incumbent seems safe -- maybe not even state Sen. George Bunting, who cast the sole vote against deregulation back in 1999.

The governor who signed electricity deregulation into law was Tom Carper, who is now a U.S. senator. Jeff Bullock, then-Gov. Carper's chief of staff in 1999, explains some of the rationale for the deregulation vote:

This is an issue that people are looking back at now with better than 20-20 hindsight. ... In 1999, the Enron and WorldCom scandals hadn't happened yet. California hadn't happened yet. Most people thought deregulation and free-market competition would be good for consumers. ... We were trying to be out there on the cutting edge.

That's from an article titled "Deregulation was a victory for lobbyists." Lobbyists for the utility, for the power suppliers and power wholesalers, power retailers, and all the other layers of middlemen that deregulation added to the power supply chain in the name of increased efficiency. So nevermind the Bullock claim that this was all done in the interest of what "would be good for consumers."

I'm neither an economist nor an energy speculator, and I can't even pretend to understand how this supposed "free market" in electrons is supposed to work. I've tried, but I can't puzzle out the difference between the supposed market-efficiencies of legitimate energy wholesalers like Delmarva Power and the shell-game subsidiaries of Enron.

But the "free market" introduced by electricity deregulation in the First State seems neither free nor a market. The majority of Delaware households face a virtual monopoly from a single unregulated electricity provider -- a company that does not, itself, generate a single kilowatt of electricity but that is instead a middleman buying low from generators and selling high to consumers. That's not what free-market advocates of electricity deregulation had in mind, but it very well may be what the utility lobbyists had in mind when they embraced the language of free markets to promote the legislation that brought about this strange state of affairs.

Some additional reading:

* "Energy Deregulation Comes Home to Roost," by Steven Mufson of The Washington Post. Mufson traces the deregulation debacle in Maryland:

More than half of Maryland households ... still face sharp hikes in their electricity bills. Maryland politicians, many of whom have received contributions from the utility, face voter ire in an election year.

And notes that deregulation has resulted in an "80 percent increase for customers of Texas's biggest utility."

* "Rising rates? It's not just deregulation" by Steven Church of The (Del.) News Journal. Church notes that some of the 59 percent increase facing Delaware households is the result of factors other than deregulation, such as increased oil and gas prices. But he concludes that deregulation is responsible for some of that increase, and that it clearly has done the opposite of what its advocates claimed it would -- reduce prices for consumers:

Deregulation by itself didn't cause the rate increase, but it did create the conditions that made residents and small businesses vulnerable to wild spikes in the price of natural gas. ... The cost of generating power at all plants has gone up since 1999 because of inflation and the higher cost of coal and natural gas. But if Delmarva still operated under old regulations, customers probably would have faced a series of smaller increases that, taken together, would have been lower than the 59 percent hike.

* Consumer Reports was way ahead of the game on deregulation, noting back in 2002 that "It was supposed to cut prices, expand choice, enhance service -- improve your life. So how come you're not smiling?" Here's a link to a .pdf file of their article "Deregulated," describing "how deregulation has affected consumers and what they can do to better protect themselves."

That's the key phrase: "protect themselves." Because that is the literal meaning of deregulation -- the government abdicating its responsibility to protect the public.

Comments

[Peatey]

[T]he [Delaware] state government ... is increasingly viewed as more interested in the interests of business than in the interests of the public.

What took so long? Delaware has been a state for its mant corporate citizens than its natural citizens for decades now.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/bebchuk/pdfs/2003.bebchuk-cohen.not-so-fierce-rivalry.pdf
"Delaware's annual revenues from franchise taxes are on the order of $3,000 for each household of four in the state, and they constitute about 30% of the state's budget."

[cjmr's husband]

The Maryland Legislature will be coming back for a special session this summer to see if they can save their a$$es in November. Our illustrious Gov Erlich (R-Slot Machines) already shot down three proposals.

There actually was another power company here for a couple years, StarPower, but BGE and Pepco managed to drive it out of business. It hung on as an internet provider, but that's gone now too. So now we have a handful of deregulated power, phone, and cable monopolies in Maryland. One more product of the Invisible Back of the Hand.

Can't wait to see Scott's response to this situation...

[Skyknight]

{sets a little landmine for Scott, which follows}

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
—John Kenneth Galbraith (b. 1908), Canadian-born American economist

[Kriz1818]

There's a good book by Sharon Beder, Power Play: The Fight to Control the World's Electricity (New Press/WW Norton, 2003). You should see what it has to say about Brazil, nevermind the U.S. power boondoggles of the early 20th century. This ain't new.

[Natalie]

I live in Delaware and my favortie part of the increase was the deferral/phase-in plan that everyone was automatically enrolled in and then which would have caused us to not only pay higher electric bills for 18 months after the end of the phase-in, but also to pay INTEREST to Delmarva.

And the letter we got from Delmarva about the plan? Was all, "There is no other electric provider in the state, but if there were, this is the rate you would use to compare." It was sort of taunting.

I've had it on my to-do list to call Melanie George and Jack Markell, but it hasn't made it to the top of the list yet--but between the 63.5% more in electric rates we're going to pay (we're residential space heat customers and pay a higher rate) and the rapidly rising gasoline prices, we're going to be hurting, especially come next winter. And while we're broke a lot of the time, we're not poor. I can't imagine what actual poor people are going to do about this increase, because the phase-in plan is not a good deal for them, but they can't eat a 59% increase all at once, either. I entertain fantasies of a massive overhaul of DART, with better routes, main transfer points other than Rodney Square, and expanded weekend service, but I know it's just a fantasy.

[Scott]

Whenever you hear someone railing against "big government," keep an eye on your wallet.

I keep an eye on my wallet every time a liberal touches a keyboard.

But the "free market" introduced by electricity deregulation in the First State seems neither free nor a market. The majority of Delaware households face a virtual monopoly from a single unregulated electricity provider -- a company that does not, itself, generate a single kilowatt of electricity but that is instead a middleman buying low from generators and selling high to consumers.

In other words, your benevolent govt changed it's regulations a bit and you want to blame someone other than The State for any ill effects.

I don't live in Delaware - go ahead and make it the socialist paradise you want. Prove to us noncompassionate idiots just how much power over others you deserve. Good luck living there when everyone else moves out to get away from your control.

[Scott]

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

The modern liberal is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for envy.

[Puck]

Silly - and you should know better Fred.

A market is simply a technique for optimizing price. You cannot do better than a market-based solution. If you want a welfare program - then suggest a welfare program and let the democratic process know what it is voting on - but don't pretend you can vote yourself lower prices because you can't. All you do is reallocate costs elsewhere - in this case the costs associated with procuring electric generation fuel (the highest component of non-nuclear generation costs) from other distribution markets.

> I work in Delaware, but I don't live there. That means I'm not facing this 59 percent increase in my utility bill,

Correct - that's because you live in an area long-ago deregulated.

[cjmr's husband]

I'm quite happy to blame "The State" for this mess: they quite deliberately dropped the ball.

"A market is simply a technique for optimizing price." Horse hockey. A market is a technique for optimizing profit. It has a side effect of lowering price if -- and this is important -- there is more than one player in the market.

It is possible to deregulate a monopoly, but SOMEONE has to step up and invest the massive amount of capital to have a viable competitor in place when the controls are dropped. That didn't happen in DelMarVa, in Del, Mar, or Va. So the states shouldn't have dropped their controls.

[Francis]

Doesn't anyone know any basic economics these days? (Or possibly they never did - I'm probably younger than most of you).

The problem here is not the direct privatisation, it is privatisation to a monopoly. When a government provides a service, the cost of that is based on the costs to produce - when a corporation provides a service, the cost will be based on what the market will pay.

In the case of a properly functioning market, if any supplier sets prices too high, the clients will all walk across the road to another supplier.

In the case of producer capture (the main system of which is a monopoly), the clients can not walk and therefore the market is no longer a free market. At which point the clients are dependent on the good will of the supplier, and any control they can exert over the supplier (and a democratic state is both more likely to have good will and be more controlable than a private company responsible to its shareholders).

This deregulation started out in a state-controlled monopoly, responsible to the residents and ended up in a corporate monopoly, responsible to the shareholders. Is it any wonder the residents have suffered?

A market is simply a technique for optimizing price.

Indeed - but it doesn't work in the case of a monopoly (or a cartel that effectively creates a monopoly) because there are no alternative providers. Therefore the price is strictly optimised for the provider's interests.

A monopoly (including a local monopoly or a cartel) destroys any validity of markets.

You cannot do better than a market-based solution.

Like Enron? Or like the US healthcare system (and just how much do the insurance companies cost/make)?

For that matter, market based solutions in capitalist systems are always inefficient for the consumers - they need to make a profit rather than simply break even. That they are the best known system in the real world as long as you can ensure an absence of producer capture is not something I'm denying. And for a market based solution to work, there needs to be more potential supply than demand - to allow consumers to switch producers (incidently, this is what made the deregulation of California such a disaster - a centralised producer can work with very little surplus - but as soon as any one provider supplies more of an essential resource than the market has surplus, they have an effective monopoly because not everyone can walk).

If you have producer capture, then a governmental model is massively more effective than a free market one because you have leverage over the government that you do not have over a corporation.

In short, markets work. State provision works (although not always as effectively). The switch between them needs to be handled extremely carefully or you end up with a corporate monopoly - which is the worst of both worlds.

(Oh, and I can't be bothered to get into the fact that a "free market" is an oxymoron even if approaching it is often a desirable goal).

[steve duncan]

One day 90% of our populace will live only slightly better than the denizens of a Calcutta slum. Energy issues aren’t going away or being addressed seriously. Workers will eventually compete for nearly EVERY job with someone overseas making less than a dollar an hour. A leveling of the playing field was inevitable as transportation, finance, communication, education and capitalistic influences around the world caught up with the U.S. However, 6 billion people are never going to achieve the lifestyle of a solidly middle class family here. That middle class family will soon have to settle for a lifestyle closer to that of many poorer souls elsewhere on the planet.

[Mnemosyne]

The modern liberal is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for envy.

Why is it that every time a conservative says this, I picture him sitting in his basement screaming, "You'll pry these Cheesy Poofs from my COLD DEAD HANDS!"

[Skyknight]

I'm just wondering what Scott's solution for ensuring that there is no chance of anyone ever suffering privation is. I'm starting to think that he doesn't see any way to shatter both avarice AND envy...

[Skyknight]

Now that I think about it...Why do people insist on thinking that there are no alternatives to capitalism and socialism? There must be SOME middle ground that'll make everyone happy...

[Francis]

Why do people insist on thinking that there are no alternatives to capitalism and socialism? There must be SOME middle ground that'll make everyone happy...

Socialism, as implimented in both Europe and America is the middle ground - mixing some state interference with a relatively free market. The equivalent to pure capitalism on the supposedly socialist side would be Stalinist (or Maoist) Communism, not socialism.

For that matter, a market couldn't exist without some entity akin to a government. (I outline why here but the quick version is that the government is needed to keep everyone at the market safe from everyone else).

[mds]

The switch between them needs to be handled extremely carefully or you end up with a corporate monopoly - which is the worst of both worlds.

Of course, according to Milton Friedman, a regulated monopoly is worse than an unregulated one. Apparently because it can't maximize returns on investment.

Oh, and Mr. Clark, don't forget to collect "use fees" from Scott and Puck, for using an Internet initially constructed by coerced governmental reallocation of resources ("taxes" for those who don't worship selfishness as a virtue). Since they don't believe in democratic societies using a government that they control for the common good, they should not be permitted to parasitically sponge off of anything born of collectivism. Enjoy cutting cross-country to your electricity-free workplace, fellas!

The modern liberal is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for envy.

I wonder what George Soros, Warren Buffett, and the elder Bill Gates are so envious of (given that they are such fans of government-enforced redistribution schemes). Or the residents of the Upper East Side, who don't tend to vote Libertarian in presidential elections.

[Scott]

A market is a technique for optimizing profit

A market isn't a "technique" for anything. If you want maximized revenue, have the state set a high price and give away a monopoly on the service.

I'm just wondering what Scott's solution for ensuring that there is no chance of anyone ever suffering privation is.

There isn't one. You cannot ensure a damn thing.

If you have producer capture, then a governmental model is massively more effective than a free market one because you have leverage over the government that you do not have over a corporation.

Riiiight. One customer out of millions has no leverage, one voter out of millions is The Voice That Must Be Heard. Bullshit.

I wonder what George Soros, Warren Buffett, and the elder Bill Gates are so envious of (given that they are such fans of government-enforced redistribution schemes). Or the residents of the Upper East Side, who don't tend to vote Libertarian in presidential elections.

The same thing that lower income people who vote for conservatives for morality reasons are greedy for. My generalization was just as valid as the one I responded to.

[forestwalker]

This fiasco in Delaware makes a nice case study of the thesis (which echoes some of what Francis has to say above) Jack Whelan of After the Future makes in Libertarianism--The Unwitting Ally of Tyranny.

Here's the main of it:

"Because here's where the intellectual incoherence of Libertarians breaks down in the economic sphere.... If government is seen to be the enemy because of its power to restrain liberty, Libertarians are naive about the threat to Liberty that comes from those who have become powerful because of their unrestricted freedom to pursue wealth. The practical effect of Libertarianism leads inevitably to the loss of Liberty for the majority so that the few can do as they please, and this must inevitably evolve into the crony capitalism that is degrading our political life as I write.

"What the Libertarians oppose in principle, they promote in fact. The Libertarians, so fearful of the tyranny of governments, have created a widely, if superficially, adopted political philosophy that creates the conditions in which the government is inevitably be bought by the wealthy thus creating the tyranny they so adamantly oppose. Isn't this precisely what we're seeing with the Bush administration, the administration that so many Libertarians voted for because they thought Bush was a principled conservative?

"Libertarianism, in the end, promotes only the freedom of the strong to dominate the weak. The only counterbalance that those of us in the middle have to the power is in a democratic government that works in the interests of the many rather than in the interests of the few. This in the end is the only tool that ordinary people have to protect themselves against tyranny, and it's a tool that that in the last twenty five years they have slowly given away. That's why everything depends on our taking our government back to insure that we have the power to fight the inevitable tyranny that is to come if the Libertarians continue to muddle our collective thinking. The superwealthy elites are not interested in Liberty or democracy in Iraq or in the United States. Everything about the current administration is disdainful of democracy and democratic procedures. They are about power and about abusing it in any way they want."

[SV]

The difference between Fred's situation in PA and the one in Delaware is not that he's living in a state that's been dereg'd for a while - it's that PA did deregulation *correctly*. Or, at least, that's the story I get from my corporate masters.

I believe there are multiple generating companies available to customers in PA, and while the generation side is deregulated, the transmission/delivery side isn't. Also - Exelon is the power corporation that owns PECO, the delivery company for SW PA, and unlike Delmarva Power/Conectiv, Exelon has a huge generating capacity from multiple sources (nuke, fossil, gas, hydro). I don't know about the other power companies in the state.

When I lived in Philly, I didn't pay electric to PECO directly, so I don't know first-hand how deregulation there hit residential customers. I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who does live in PA, to see if there's at least one state where deregulation didn't totally screw the little guy.

[tommywonk]

While it seems that the current regime has not served us well, any system of setting prices would face the same hard facts of climbing oil prices.

Our national government is run by two oil executives. Our vice president created federal energy policy heddled with oil executives behind closed doors. BushCo has waived drilling royalties for oil companies to provide them "incentives" to do what their shareholders and customers already expect them to do. Oil companies are reaping record profits based on higher prices. BushCo's energy bill passed last year is a grab-bag of incentives and giveaways to the enrgy industry.

Clearly federal energy policy is a dismal failure. Those who created and supported this policy debacle should be held accountable.

[Skyknight]

Scott: Can't ensure ANYTHING? What kind of foundation for hope in anything is THAT? Really, I can't see how aiming for anything short of absolute perfection can classify as anything other than rank cowardice and despair...

Warding off both governmental tyranny and corporate tyranny...There has to be SOME way to pull it off. I haven't seen causal evidence that speaks otherwise (human nature? I'm sure it can be defeated...isn't that part of Christianity's goal?)...

[Francis]

Of course, according to Milton Friedman, a regulated monopoly is worse than an unregulated one. Apparently because it can't maximize returns on investment.

There's a reason that, although I don't think that all (or even most) Conservatives are morally bankrupt kleptocrats, I consider Milton Friedman one of the inspirations of those that are.

If you have producer capture, then a governmental model is massively more effective than a free market one because you have leverage over the government that you do not have over a corporation.

Riiiight. One customer out of millions has no leverage, one voter out of millions is The Voice That Must Be Heard. Bullshit.

Write out 10,000 times "In a monopoly, the customer can not go elsewhere". Or have you no understanding of what a monopoly actually is?

In a democratic system, enough dissatisfied voters can vote the politicians out. Under a monopoly system, the customers can't go elsewhere for the product. Also, under a democratic system, the government is officially acting in the interests of the voters - whereas in a corporate system, the corporation is acting in the best interests of its shareholders, and the best interests of the shareholders in a monopoly involve screwing the clients to maximise returns.

Yes, there are few cases where one person on his or her own will have an effect either way. Your point?

Now, do I need to go over any more basic economics for you Scott?

[bulbul]

One customer out of millions has no leverage, one voter out of millions is The Voice That Must Be Heard. Bullshit.
*blink* What the ... *blink* Make that basic social studies too, Francis.

[LL]

I live in N. Texas, and my electric bill has doubled. On the one hand, I'm unhappy about paying more. On the other hand, people in Europe have for a long time paid $5 and $6 a gallon for gas, not sure about electricity (I realize they're not the same and are not generated in the same manner, but they're both forms of energy, so there), so it seems sorta weenieish to complain now about how much it costs to heat and cool our enormous homes and gas up our enormous cars (well, other people's: I drive an Echo and live in a small apartment). Gas and electricity couldn't stay cheap forever. China and India are going to keep buying more oil, probably one day soon exceeding our consumption and electricity providers have something we need and will charge what the market will bear. I have no doubt they have some sweet deals written into various laws and regulations, of course, that's how the system has always worked. If Americans paid as much attention to the government as they do American Idol and professional sports, the crooks in Congress and the private sector wouldn't find it so easy to screw us over. While Congress keeps people distracted over nonsense like gay marriage or boobies on TV, lobbyists are busy crafting legislation that directly benefits their employers. We pay Congress, but lobbyists own them. I'll believe people are really hurting when the average square footage of a new house stops approaching that of the Taj Mahal and I'm no longer surrounded by enormous SUVs every time I drive. Until then, it's hard to feel sorry for many people. Republicans, especially. You wanted a "free market," now you got it. A lesson on being careful what you wish for.

[wintermute]

> Gas and electricity couldn't stay cheap forever.

Gas and oil can't. Electricity can, if we move away from fossil fuels.

[bulbul]

LL: Uncle Google informs me that 1 US gallon = 3.7854118 liters. Let's say it's 3.8.
The gas station down the street lists the price of Uni95 gasoline (which, my dad tells me, is what most cars around here run on) at 40 Skk, which would mean that a US gallon of gassoline costs 152 Sk, $1 = 30 Sk, which brings us to 5.1 dollars a gallon in Slovakia. This price might be not that representative of all of Europe 'cause of the local semimonopoly on gasoline and you could save about 2-4 Sk a liter by filling up in the Czech Republic, which is a 30-40 mile drive. On the other hand, the same type of gas goes for EURO 1.1-1.3/liter ($5.15-6.1/gallon) in Austria and EURO 1.2-1.45/liter ($5.6-6.8/gallon) in Germany. While we are not panicking, most people would consider it quite expensive. I wonder what effect it will have on the usual summer "Staus" on German highways. But it is plain to see that we don't rely on our cars as much as Americans do.
As for the electricity, my friendly provider informs me (in big bright red letters, too) that 1 kWh = 4 Sk, i.e. 13 US cents. The price of electricity did go up in recent years, but that's mostly thanks to privatization and deregulation. FYI, 39% of our electricity is generated by two nuclear powerplants, another 35% by water ... whatever those are called. We appear to be slowly moving from producing electricity from fossile fuels (26% now). There is currently a debate going on about expanding existing nuclear facilities and most people seem to agree that it would be a reasonable option.

Now excuse me, I gotta lie down. All that math is making me dizzy...

[cjmr's husband]

"Hydroelectric plant".

$3/gallon. I drive a Mini. I laugh.

[Peatey]

cjmr's husband, mileage isn't what comes to mind when I think Mini. It's certainly not bad, but it's not great either.

"Hydroelectric plant".

Gee, that's nice. I live in hydroelectric-plant country. When they put in the dams, and the nuclear plant, they told people here that they in particular would get cheap electricity, since they had these plants and dams in their backyard. But it hasn't worked out that way. We pay as much as anyone else, most of the electricity generated here is consumed elsewhere, and people in other regions feel completely free to say, "We won't have that here," WRT unsightly generation plants of various kinds.

Green technology is nifty, but the way it's playing out -- like those stupid "go yellow" commercials -- it's just another tool to preserve and promote inequity.

[cjmr's husband]

34mpg real life -- you can't beat that without driving a hybrid, a diesel, or a slug.

This isn't to say that my next car won't be a hybrid or a H2 burner.

[wintermute]

I was in the market for a new car a little while ago, and fuel economy was a big criteria for me. So I looked into hybrids, and discovered an interesting thing:

Honda Accord Manual: 34mpg
Honda Accord Automatic: 29mpg
Honda Accord Hybrid: 34mpg
Data

The pattern is repeated across almost all hybrids; they're slightly better than automatics, but no better (or at best, not significantly better) than manuals. The one exception that I found was the Toyota Prius, which has no regular-engined equivilent, but gets between 60 and 80mpg, depending on which numbers you read. Unfortunately, the dealership didn't have one I could test drive, or buy any time soon, and I was in a little bit of a rush, so I got the manual Accord (hence using it for the statistics above).

To be fair, I was only looking at one size category (and that fairly large), but it seems to hold that hybrids, for the most part, are no more fuel efficient than regular cars, so why bother with them?

[wintermute]

Peaty: If the MINI (to use BMW's capitalisation) is "not bad, but not great either", why does the source you link to list it as being the most efficient in its class? How do you define "great"?

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/best/bestworstNF.shtml

[bulbul]

"Hydroelectric plant
Yeah, that's the one. Thanks :o)

34mpg real life
that's 34 miles per gallon, right? If 1 mile = 1.609 km and 1 gallon = 3.8, that would give me ... oh my head ... 6.94 litres per 100 km. Not bad. But not that good either, for a Mini. Just a random selection from the cars parked outside my house: Škoda Fabia Classic 1,2 40 kw, a basic sedan, eats up 6.9 l/100km. Volkswagen Polo 1,2, another basic sedan = 6.0 l/100km, Honda Jazz 1,4 = 6.6 l/100km and Opel Astra 1,4 = 5.7 l/100km.
As for smaller cars, we have a Fiat Punto 1,2 (one of those with two doors, whatever these are called) = 5.7 l/100km, Citroen C2 1.4 = 7.1 l/100km and just to compare, Mini Cooper S = 6,8 l/100km and Mini Sea Ibiza Cupra = 10 l/100km.
And finally, there's the Kia Sorento 2,5, the only SUV currently parked here. Mileage: 14 l/100km, i.e. about 17 mpg. Hm.

[cjmr's husband]

The "minicompact" class is defined by a small back seat and little or no trunk. It includes all the MINIs, the convertible Beetle, and the "vestigial back seat" class of sports cars: the Audi TT and a whole slew of Aston Martins and BMWs and Porsches.

For fuel economy, not much competition.

Outside of the class, there are subcompacts that are "larger" and get better mileage than the MINI, but they qualify as slugs IMNSHO.

[cjmr's husband]

Bulbul, one of the problems in the US is they don't sell any of those cars here. For completeness, here's the metric numbers from the mini.co.uk:

MINI ONE: 6,8 to 7,7 l/100km (they don't sell that one here)
MINI ONE D: 4,8 l/100km (they don't sell that one here either)
MINI Cooper: 6,9 to 7,7 l/100km (that's what I have)
MINI Cooper S: 8,6 l/100km (supercharged)

so your calculations are right. (I think the 7.7 is for the automatic; the page isn't clear on that)

When I bought my MINI two years ago, the only cars available with better mileage were the Prius and the Toyota Echo. (maybe a Hyundai and a Suzuki, but I didn't consider those) Things are improving.

[Scott]

Write out 10,000 times "In a monopoly, the customer can not go elsewhere". Or have you no understanding of what a monopoly actually is?

In a democratic system, enough dissatisfied voters can vote the politicians out.

Vote them out and vote in the one other group available (the political party out of power) based on their pandering and watch them screw up just as badly. Vote them out and vote in someone who will give you what you want as part of the 51% that show up on election day while screwing over the other 49%. Dissapprove of them concering power prices but vote them back in anyway because they share your views on other topics like abortion (whatever those views happen to be).

That, and your monopoly in all probability has govt support in keeping out competitors (licensing, etc). That's not a statement I intended to be specific to Delaware; I don't follow their electricity situation and don't know (or care, I don't live there) specifically what they did.

And isn't govt supposed to be a monopoly in the first place? You have as much right to leave your state if you don't like their power distributor as you have to leave if you don't like the legislature.

Enron was found to be built on fraud. Enron basically ceased to exist, despite not having killed tens to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis or running abominations like Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. The Bush admin was found to be built on fraud. He was reelected and his party still holds Congress. Tell me politics is more responsive than the market.

I'm beginning to hope the Bush crowd gets away with everything just so I can spend the rest of my life throwing left wing impotence in the face of every liberal who tries this "the govt is responsible to the people" crap on me. What prison did Nixon die in?

[inge]

For conversing units in general and fuel consumption in particular from European to US systems, try http://www.vip-site.ch/Utilities/umrechnungen__conversions.htm.

When I see the 1.359 Euro per litre prices at the gas stations I always try to remind myself that while I remember a litre price of about 0.8 DM (0.4 Euro cent), that was the time when a paperback book cost 3.80 DM instead of 12.90 Euro. So the price for petrol may have gone up by 240%, tax and all, but the price of books has gone up more than 600%, and I'm still buying books...

[bulbul]

one of the problems in the US is they don't sell any of those cars here
I wouldn't expect Škoda or Opel trying to make it in the US, but not even Honda or Volkswagen?
Anyway, all I meant to point out the obvious gap in mileage standards.

[wintermute]

> I wouldn't expect Škoda or Opel trying to make it in the US, but not even Honda or Volkswagen?

Volkswagon sell a few models in America, most significantly the Beetl (or "Bug" as it seems to be called over here, and "Brouk" as Wikipedia tells me it is in the Czech Republic, though that might only apply to the old style). Honda are a major company, but don't sell the Jazz, or at least not under that name; I also don't recognise it from when I was in Britain, though.

As a rule, European cars only sell in America at the luxury end of the market: Bentley, Mercedes, Porsche, BMW and the like are known, but mass-market brands like SEAT, Ibiza, Citroën or Fiat are virtually unheard of. Volkswagon are an exception, for reasons I have no information about, but probably involve the popularity of the original Beetle...

[Francis]

Scott,

I have no idea just why the US political system is as screwed up as it currently is. But it is definitely very screwed up (particularly on anything relating to abortion).

One way the politicians can pander to the people is to promise to rein in the state monopolies. The difference between pandering and being responsive to legitimate concerns is not one I would care to work out in most cases. And I do not and have never claimed that a democratic system is perfect - but it gives a means of keeping things under control, and no direct incentive to screw the customers sideways. Under a corporate monopoly, there are no checks and balances preventing the customers being screwed sideways - and it is good business practice to do so in order to maximise profits.

The only relevant point you made in there was that government is, and has to be a monopoly. Which is why it is essential that it is accountable - with the best method of being accountabe that we have found being democracy. Yes, this isn't ideal - but find a better one for dealing with monopolies.

I'm beginning to hope the Bush crowd gets away with everything just so I can spend the rest of my life throwing left wing impotence in the face of every liberal who tries this "the govt is responsible to the people" crap on me. What prison did Nixon die in?

The phrase "Cutting off your nose to spite your face" appears to be completely applicable here. If the liberals are on the side of right, but impotent, you have a moral duty to join them in their causes - not to do so makes you morally worse than those who are simply apathetic.

[Scott]

Yes, this isn't ideal - but find a better one for dealing with monopolies.

Well, we could quit giving rhetorical justification forcibly maintaining ones we like, like govt.

The phrase "Cutting off your nose to spite your face" appears to be completely applicable here. If the liberals are on the side of right, but impotent, you have a moral duty to join them in their causes - not to do so makes you morally worse than those who are simply apathetic.

Their "causes"? A perfect example of the nonresponsiveness of govt. If I think Bush lied about Iraq, you consider me morally required to support their tax policies, despite the fact that those are two different issues. I can't vote for no war and lower taxes; that's hardly 'responsive'. If an option you want isn't available privately, that's supposedly "market failure", but my disagreement w/ both parties isn't "govt failure", only because we don't dare put 'govt' (the opposing party, yes, govt itself, no) and 'failure' in the same sentence. That may lead to the wrong thoughts.

The enemy of my enemy isn't my friend, just sometimes useful. I have no moral duty toward any liberal. Given the same situation, the left would do the same. If I could only think of a *cough*LBJ*cough* corrupt President from the same state as Bush who *cough*GulfOfTonkin*cough* lied us into a war to demonstrate.....

Who Profits at the Pump?
Over the past quarter century, oil companies directly sent more than $2.2 trillion in taxes, adjusted for inflation, to state and federal governments — three times what they collectively earned in profits over the same time period. Yet some politicians say this is not enough and are proposing a new “windfall profits” tax to raise billions more for federal coffers.

...Today, Americans pay an average of 45.9 cents in taxes per gallon of gas. The federal gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon while the average state and local tax is 27.5 cents. ...

Exxon Mobil president says they make only nickel a gallon profit
DALLAS _ Exxon Mobil Corp. Chairman Lee Raymond said that no matter how high gasoline prices may be at the pump, oil companies like his take no more than 3 to 5 cents per gallon in profit.

"Most of the cost of the price of gasoline at the pump is for taxes and the purchase of crude oil...

What do oil companies make on a gallon of gasoline?
An industry-wide study in the late 1990s showed that oil industry profits amounted to an estimated 7.3 cents on each gallon sold. More recently, ConocoPhillips reported that during the third quarter of 2005 earnings from its U.S. refining and marketing operations amounted to 9 cents per gallon....

[Peatey]

wintermute and cjmr's husband:

Sorry I was just writing from cursory knowledge of just the Civics and other subcompacts get high 30mpgs, so assumed that a smaller MINI or other microcompacts should easily surpass that.

[Francis]

Well, we could quit giving rhetorical justification forcibly maintaining ones we like, like govt.

The problem is that government is necessary and when undertaken effectively can be more efficient than the private sector (try comparing the US and UK healthcare systems in terms of effectiveness).

Without a government, you have nothing to make sure that the market can't simply be robbed by the biggest user at swordpoint, and so the entire system breaks down. Also, a lot of things are in strictly limited supply and therefore will produce monopolies (even if only local ones).

[Francis]

Incidently, you really think that a Democratic president would have managed to spend more than the Shrub with both houses belonging to the Republicans? Or do you not care about spending so long as taxes for the rich are kept down?

[wintermute]

Peatey: Once you get down to the size of a MINI, the minimum requirements for passenger area start to bite you. You can't make the car anywhere near as streamlined and still have it be more than a single seater. You need to use a smaller engine, which will tend to be less efficient. There are probably other factors that also apply, but the end result is that the benefit from reduced weight is negated.

[cjmr's husband]

(that, and the fact that the new MINI isn't anywhere near as small and light as the old Mini.)

[Garnet]

I'm beginning to hope the Bush crowd gets away with everything just so I can spend the rest of my life throwing left wing impotence in the face of every liberal who tries this "the govt is responsible to the people" crap on me.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the true face of liberetarianism.

[Jeff]

wintermute:
Honda Accord Hybrid: 34mpg

That site shows 49 city, 51 highway for the Civic Hybrid, and I get about 42 city and 50 highway in Real Life. My previous Civic got around 30 or so, so this is a great improvement.

(I looked at the Prius and hated it. Stupid interior design, intended to impress weak minds, and milage not much better than mine. I'm very happy with my choice.)

[wintermute]

Yeah, the Civic is smaller than I need, so I wasn't looking at it. Maybe the pointlessness of hybrids is a phenomena only seen in larger cars. I can see how that would make sense.

Of more interest, IMHO is the fact that the Civic automatic outperforms the manual version.

As an aside, my previous car was a 2000 Honda Accord, and that was my benchmark for a good driving experience. I tried roughly-equivilent Fords, Chevys, VWs and Toyotas (all 2006 models), and not a one of them came anywhere close. So I got another Accord, and I've been happy ever since. Hondas rule ;)

[lbb]

Apropos of all the hybrid discussion: I know that the Prius doesn't come in manual (it can't), but are there hybrids that do? Or could there be?