"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Then you'd have no problem paying higher electric rates? How about
if
the electric company decides to reduce or (horrors!) outsource some
of
it's functions in order to lessen the costs?

The man in the
moon? When your local utility finally has to dismantle a nuclear
reactor
whose lifespan has been reached, don't YOU expect the cost to be
part
of
your bill?

I had to pay to build the damn thing in the first place. Fortunately
they were not allowed to pass on the costs until the reactors went
on
line. The really disgusting part of the whole thing was that our
electric company touted the building of this nuke plant in 1969 as a
way to reduce electric rates for local customers. So what did they
do?
As soon as the reactors went on line, they added the construction
surcharges to our bills while selling the power produced to other
markets where they could get more for it, and our bills went up, not
down.

Dave


So what? Let's say the cost of fertilizer quadruples over the next 5
years
and it affects ***all*** produce grown in this country. Would you not
expect
to pay more for produce?

Of course. But I would also expect to be paid proportionately higher
as well, so it becomes a wash. It's when sharp increases come that
fall outside the normal inflationary increases, that kill people's
buying power.

Dave

What??? If *ONE* group of products becomes more expensive, you expect to
get
a raise from your employer?




Dave is so remarkably consistent in his political beliefs, eh?

Maybe he's got the right idea. Sometime in the past 5 years when I wasn't
watching, the price of Kodak film increased. Based on Dave's theories, I
should get a raise proportional to the film's price increase.