...is not true capitalism.
It's not Capitalism at all... Your operational definition of Capitalism seems to be:
the exchange of currency for goods and/or services.
You seem to think any system that operates in that way can be considered some form of Capitalism but that is false.
The business offering the good and/or service must be privately owned AND Privately operated AND the profits as well as the investments must come from and go to private individuals AND the business products must be offered on a free market (free of government interference) in order for the system to be Capitalist.
Replace "Private" with "Public" on any of those and it's no longer Capitalism. Even with all those things being private but offered in a "mixed" market and not a free market, it's no longer Capitalism.
There are very few "pure" capitalist socieities in the world.
There are none... If there were a nation that limited it's government to the protection of individual rights and allowed a truly free market to operate, I would live there.
Because as you are driving at, there really is no such thing as "free power."
Even if you were able to offer "free" energy, it would not be enough to offset the cost of labor and therefore would not provide the competitive advantage you hope to achieve.
Natioanlization would work similarly to the way many utilities are run now, with a magisatrate (like in Bankruptcy) as oversight behalf of the people.
Public utilities are currently operated by city governments, some of them operate at a profit and some of them at a deficit. Federal nationalization would dramatically affect the budgets of those cities. The ones who operate their utilities in the red would be handing off a failing business to the government and the ones who are making a profit would have to offset the losses from the others.
As you increase the supply, well over 125% of CONUS demand, the price drops.
Don't be so sure...
Successful Water Conservation May Lead To Rate Hike
BOULDER, Colo -- People in Boulder are so good at conserving water that the city may have to raise water rates to make up for it.
Utilities officials report that water usage is down to 1980s levels, in part because of conservation and in part because of an aggressive rate system that encourages reduced use and a wet spring and summer.
Because of the decreased use, water revenues are more than $1 million less than expected this year, and the Boulder City Council is considering a 3 percent rate increase.
It is a fundamental misunderstanding of supply and demand to think that increasing supply, or decreasing demand, will result in lower costs.
Once you have the excess, supply...sell it to the adjacent markets (Canada, Mexico, etc)
Mexican labor is much cheaper than American labor and Canada is already
the United States’ largest and most secure supplier of oil, natural gas, electricity and uranium, so we won't be making any money selling them electricity.
But it does create the proper environment for the creation of a competative advantage for capitalist production facilities.
Government subsidized electricity would preclude use of the term "Capitalist" in your proposal and, as I have tried to point out above, nationalization would provide no competitive advantage.
Like I said earlier, my suggestion is not the only suggestion; may be even not the best solution. But it is a solution and would advance our abilities to improve production.
As I stated at the beginning, your "solution" would be counterproductive and only exacerbate whatever problems you are hoping to alleviate or solve.
(Capitalism & Free Markets)
Niether needs defended.
Clearly they do because there is a fundamental misunderstanding of both and it is evident in your posts.
(Capitalism & Free Markets) there are winners and losers.... (and in Capitalism & Free Markets, there must always be losers)
You have fallen victim to the fallacy of false analogy. While this analogy has not been explicitly stated, it is nevertheless the premise behind your conclusion.
you will probably be less inclinded to support the system that fails you.
The false analogy: Capitalism is like Gambling - in order for someone to win, others must lose. You are looking at wealth as a zero sum game, meaning that the poker chips on the table represent the total amount of wealth available and anyone who wins must do so at the expense of someone else. In reality, wealth (the poker chips) are unlimited and while it is true that some do lose, there does exist the possibility that everyone can win (profit).
A better, and almost perfect, analogy to Capitalism and Wealth would be Learning and Knowledge. In this analogy Capitalism and Learning are both the "system" while Wealth and Knowledge are the results. Both systems offer unlimited results.
Nobody had to become a blithering idiot (lose) in order for Einstein to become a brilliant genius (win). In fact, Einsteins "win" vastly improved the lives of every single individual on the planet and his contributions continue on long after his death - even in ways you may not realize.
The same is true for Larry Ellison, creator of the ORACLE software, and Bill Gates, creator of WINDOWS. These men have vastly improved your life and the lives of generations to come with their inventions and creations - even in ways you may not realize.
In all three examples, the "wins" of these men translated into a "win" for all of mankind, yet people extol Einstein for turning down millions in potential wealth and denounce the likes of Larry Ellison and Bill Gates for accumulating massive fortunes. All three men deserved to be wealthy beyond their wildest dreams for their contributions to the world.
Now as for someone blaming the Capitalist "system" for their failures, I have another example... Let's say you and 2 other people have final exams coming up in a month. You work the hardest of the group, dedicating much of your time to studying for the exam, the second guy works half as hard and the third guy blows it off entirely.
The exam comes, you all take the test, the results come back, you get an A, the second guy gets a C and the slacker gets an F. You getting an A did not require the slacker to get an F, in other words, for you to win did not require him to fail. It was not a problem with the system that caused the slacker to fail and it was not a failing of the system that caused the second guy to get a C. Each person received results (knowledge) consistent with the effort they put into they system (learning).
It would have been possible for all of you to get an A, all of you to get a C, or all of you to get an F. The "system" cannot be responsible for you getting an A, just as it cannot be responsible for your getting an F, only you can be responsible for the results.
Capitalism & Free Markets are about money ... not about the health and welfare of the nation... Nothing in Capitalism & Free Markets is about the nation or its people. It is about money and profits for the individual.
Einstein was seeking individual profit in the form of knowledge, his creations were the result of that knowledge, and that in turn improved the lives of not just this nation and our people but the lives of all mankind the world over.
The same is true of Bill Gates and Larry Ellison, it was their quest for individual profit that led to their creations and as a result of their knowledge, all of mankind profited.
Individual profit has been, and will continue to be, the single greatest cause of improvements to not only this nation and the American people, but to all of the world and mankind as a whole.
