Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Alternatives to knutclient
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 21:04:11
Message-Id: CAGfcS_kegbkMOFfRW-iK9tk+7zRyij9E2yhFxk3qBbPh3Q+7Lw@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] Alternatives to knutclient by Dale
1 On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote:
2 >
3 > have we profited on today'. However, when a company is public, stocks
4 > and such, then it is about what have we made today with no one caring
5 > about years from now. After all, the people owning the stocks may not
6 > even own them next week.
7 >
8
9 Nor should they be concerned with the long-term. This should be the
10 role of the regulator. If the regulator wants spare capacity, then
11 they should take bids for companies to have spare capacity available
12 and they get paid to just sit on their excess capacity. If the
13 regulator wants more redundancy in the transmission network then they
14 should set specifications for what is desired and take bids from those
15 able to build it out. If the regulator wants everything to be
16 replaced within a certified lifetime based on testing then they should
17 specify this, and take bids from those willing to maintain the grid to
18 this standard.
19
20 The problem is that the general public does not see the value in
21 infrastructure, so they don't think about it when they're voting.
22 Instead they vote based on whatever fringe issues the politicians want
23 them to focus on instead.
24
25 If a company is going to get paid the same whether they build for
26 extra reliability or not, they're going to opt not to. Not only does
27 this give them more profits, but it makes their bids more competitive
28 vs some other company that would just undercut them for
29 "over-providing."
30
31 Lax regulation just punishes conscientious market participants.
32
33 --
34 Rich

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-user] Alternatives to knutclient Mick <michaelkintzios@×××××.com>