What do you think of what the disgraced former Texas Mayor's comments?

1. 77

   brittvan22posted 3 years ago

   Do you think the disgraced former mayor had a point or do you think he was horribly flawed in his way of thinking? Should a totally avoidable situation lead to survival of the fittest as he suggested or broaden the vantage point of community?

   replyreport
   1. 85

      Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I assume you are talking about this ---
      https://ktxs.com/news/local/colorado-ci … ebook-post
      
      It would appear he lost his temper, and let his own opinions and ideologies rip. He is a public figure that I am sure many turned to in this horrible disaster. It appears they got a sermon and it was unfair. He did not take into account all people are just not the same. Yes, many might be more inventive, a bit sturdier to get through this crisis without needing help. Some just are not. He should respect all people are not the same, and he should have tempered his words at best or just kept his mouth shut.
      
      I would think he would have realized people needed help, and reassurance that as a community they could work to get through it.

      replyreport
   2. 96

      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Pretty harsh words from him, and probably pretty far out of line.
      
      But how was it a "totally avoidable situation"?  Should every home have a backup generator in your opinion?  Should everyone have a well?  What, in your opinion, should have been done to avoid the situation?

      replyreport
      1. 61

         CHRIS57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         The Texas situation is a typical American mess.
         - Why is the Texas grid separated from the rest of the US? Any explanation except corporate interest for local market control?
         - Why are electric lines always up in the air and not buried 3 feet in the ground? They are always subject to atmospheric hazards.
         
         You can count average power outages in the US in days per year. Doesn´t have to be this way. In my region (and the Netherlands, and Denmark...) we count outages in minutes per generation.
         
         In a typical hardware store in the US you find a department for power generators. Not so in old Europe, simply no need for them, because we don´t know power outages.
         
         "totally avoidable situation"? Yes it is avoidable.
         
         Texas seems to be in bad shape, but the rest of the US is not doing much better, at least if compared to other developed regions on our planet.
         
         The result: people are suffering.
         
         The energy grid needs to be regulated in favour of the people, not in favour of the energy industry.

         replyreport
         1. 96

            wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Don't know why it is separate, except that Texans value their freedom from the union.  It's likely far cheaper and better as well.
            
            Don't know about where you are, but in the US it is regulated.  In every state except Texas, and I would bet that Texas regulates it there.
            
            There are many reasons not to bury electric lines, starting with cost.  If people don't want to pay for it, it won't get done.  It's also next to impossible in populated areas where there is nowhere to dig without disrupting other infrastructure.  It's much more difficult to repair after such things as a flood (perhaps one driven by a hurricane - common in Texas).  Much of the US, and certainly Texas, is covered with very high voltage lines; these are impractical to bury because of the voltage.
            
            Just some of the reasons that electric lines may not be buried.  But fallen lines were not the primary cause of the trouble in Texas: insufficient generating capacity was.  And again, if people don't want to pay for excessive capacity for a "just in case", 100 year, storm then it won't get done.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               CHRIS57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

               I agree that cost is probably a main cause for not doing more on the issue.
               
               Just let me play a little industrial consulting trick:
               In the business model for industrial production (products like cars, lawnmower, airplanes) the cost for electricity is typically 1-2% of sales revenues. If you have to stop production because of power outage for 1 day in a year, that will mean a loss in production of some 1 day out of 200 or 250 production days in that particular year, that is some 0,5 %.
               
               Bury lines in the ground may increase electricity cost by how much? Even if it is 50%, and i doubt it will be so much, those 50% increase will not hurt industry at all, if they get zero power outage in return.
               
               Private people, households  will have to pay more for electricity, but - they don´t freeze and get their plumbing messed up in return. May be they can reduce their insurances to compensate?
               
               It is a gamble on chances and probability and statistics. Probability is not low. The shelves in the hardware stores with generator sets tell a different story.
               
               You may smile on this little piece of maths. But actually it shows that you have to think a problem to the very end - and not stop where individual interests come into play (consumers wanting to pay less, energy corporation wanting to earn more...) These are all legitimate interests for the stakeholders. You need a government, a responsible administration to set up rules, to do the "thinking to the very end". I don´t see that in Texas in particular and in the US as a whole. Sorry to say.

               replyreport
               1. 83

                  GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Chris57, the gist of your comment seems to be that a good government knows what is best for you, (its citizens). That is going to be a hard sell for an independent-minded populace like the U.S.
                  
                  You may have that confidence in governments, but I don't. Governments, (at least the U.S. government), are made of people like me. Do you trust me to make life decisions for you?
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 77

                     lobobrandonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     No, it is not governments as Presidents/Mayors or whomever else that does this sort of work but the government authorities and bodies that are in charge of let's say electricity distribution. These people are experts in their fields, at least they are supposed to be. Your trust needs to be in the people doing their job, the way you trust your doctor or your lawyer. It is not a question of trust in a government. Governments come and go. Of course, you should not trust yourself to operate on someone but you should trust someone who is trained to do so. .
                     
                     EDIT: I just read further down this thread and saw a reply by Wilderness. Something like this is seen as socialism in the US. No wonder it does not happen so my point above is moot.

                     replyreport
               2. 96

                  wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  No, you don't understand.  In more rural areas I doubt that it costs that much to bury a line, but it certainly does in metropolitan ones.  And Texas has tens of thousands of miles (already existing) to bury...at a cost of as much as a million per mile. 
                  
                  Of course that doesn't address the high tension lines that cannot be buried.  I don't know if you have those megavolt wires where you are but the distances to be covered make it necessary in the US.
                  
                  Now you have to pass that cost to consumers (that's how monopolies work in the US)...which means they are NOT happy.  And all for that once in a hundred year storm.  We saw the same thing in California, where the agency setting prices did not allow funding (have to keep the people happy) for proper maintenance and the state burned down as a result (exaggeration, I know).  The people absolutely demand the lowest price and that is not consistent with building extra generating plants or even maintaining existing equipment as it should be.
                  
                  This is not Germany, where govt. has near total control.  It is the US, and the laws are considerably different.  If nothing else screams will rise to the heavens if rates are increased to bury all the lines in Texas, even over years of time.  "People will freeze to death when they can't pay the bill!  People will starve if they can't cook!  They will die from overheating when they can't pay the bill!" and so on.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     CHRIS57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     GA and wilderness,
                     i know about the situation in the USA and the mindset of (i would say) almost half of the people. The problems in Texas only magnify and exemplify the systemic problems, including the comments of this former mayor. These comments only stand for a specific mindset.
                     
                     On the long run this individualistic, self responsibility approach will fail. This mindset may have been appropriate in the previous 2 centuries, but today we live in a world of scarce resources and means, even in the US. So by now the US has to learn what other nations and their populations had to learn long ago on how to deal with limited resources.
                     
                     Some are willing to adapt and respect the role of government, some are not. Kind of explains the deep trenches in society.
                     
                     Individuality does not pay off. Play the X+Y game. https://play14.org/games/x-y-game
                     
                     Teaches you a lot about human behavior. I played it as a young management trainee and eventually learned in my career that sharing benefits gets you much further than claiming benefits for yourself. Applies for corporate management and leadership and decision making, but applies also to political leadership.
                     
                     The US is already on the decline. What more proof do you need that the Texas way doesn´t get you anywhere.

                     replyreport
                     1. 96

                        wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        On the other hand, history teaches us that every effort at socialism (govt. ownership of everything) is doomed to failure.  It teaches us that govt. can never do something as efficiently as the private sector that is facing competition.  It has taught us that self responsibility built what we have today; it did not come from the bowels of govt. committees. 
                        
                        It is true, however, that some will bow down to those same govt. committees and some will not (at least not willingly).  Either way, it is the individuals in the country, not the government, that is driving improvement.

                        replyreport
2. 61

   CHRIS57posted 3 years ago

   I am close to agreeing with your comment, wilderness. Except: individuals can prosper better, if they don´t have to use their ellbows all the time to create their own set of rules. Governments a responsible to set guideline, rules, bills, laws. Individuals are responsible to make the best of it. If your are not satisfied with the performance of the government, elect alternatives next time.
   
   The whole story has little to do with socialism. It has to do with performance. If people think and see in real life, that their government is not living up to their personal needs, they will vote them out of office. If they see that alternatives also don´t perform, then they get desperate, they mistrust, they look for phoney alternatives. .. Ah, you know the story in the US.
   
   At the end of the day all individuals are hooked on the same infrastructure (electricity, gas, water, roads, ...) If that infrastructure is run in favour of the shareholders, refer to the bad Texas example. If that infrastructure is run in favour of the stakeholders (those who sell and those who buy), matter are less dire.

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      "The whole story has little to do with socialism. It has to do with performance."
      
      But it does have to do with socialism...because socialism cannot perform.  Socialism (govt. ownership, big government) does not perform except to enrich those at the top of the heap.  Nor can it be voted out in favor of change; once it gets to a certain size it is, from a practical standpoint, impossible to get rid of outside of a revolution.
      
      Can you see the people of China, or Russia, "voting" the govt. out?  Even in the US it is not truly possible, for the power does not reside with the people but with the government and the people running that government.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         CHRIS57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         China is certainly a confucian strongly hierarchic system with the party and the chairman on the top. Not what we would define as democratic.
         On the other hand it is two way: People have to obey but in return they are taken care of. You bet that if something like Texas happened in China those responsible in administration would be kicked out of office fast with severe consequences. You can´t argue that China is performing poorly. The system is run like a family where father is taking care of all.
         
         For Russia (i always stop over in Moscow, when i go to China) that is a different story. Imho a very liberal system, even though tampered by corruption. Nobody has to face consequences if he/she votes for the opposition. No more voter fraud than anywhere else on our democratic piece of the planet.
         
         I try to compare situations with my personal experience. All systems, democratic or not do have their flaws. It is always a matter of if people suffering or not from the flaws. My take: People start suffering, if corruption or in softer words: lobbyism dominates politics, no matter USA, Europe, Russia, China, Asia.

         replyreport