|
Deregulation of the electricity industry in Alberta
Deregulation
Alberta has deregulated
its electricity industry to develop a competitive market for power generation and electricity
services that will benefit consumers across the province.
Government
of Alberta
Doesn't it make you feel good and proud to hear that, but is it true? Is it true
for farmers?
The website of the Alberta Government Department of Energy boasts of what has been done
especially for farmers:
Rural Electric:
The Rural Electric Program commenced in 1947. It is a cost-sharing
program, which helps defray the high cost of electrical service to farmers.
The Rural Electric Program assists farmers to access a basic,
essential service at a reasonable cost and aids in the diversification of our rural
economy. It also provides partial equity with other Albertans living in urban areas as
well as those living in other western provinces that benefit from lower hook-up costs and
power rates sponsored by their provincial governments through Crown corporations.
Alberta Government (Full
story)
That sure doesn't sound right, or does it? Consider that Alberta
now has the highest electricity costs of all provinces. However, the Alberta
Government's claim is not a recounting of history, of things that were, but of how
things ostensibly are right now. The truth is quite different, and as the Alberta
Government knows exactly what the truth is, there is no excuse for not telling it.
There is no excuse for obfuscating and distorting the truth.
The Web page of the Department of Energy that makes an attempt at telling the
Big Lie has fortunately been seen only by somewhat fewer than 3,000 people. However,
the Alberta Government's story that "the deregulation of utilities is good for
Albertans" has been told many times by the government, was repeated hundreds and
thousands of times by the media and has by now been thoroughly accepted by Albertans,
almost all of them. It's hard to understand why. It's costing them dearly.
The explanation is that it is propaganda in action. It is in the nature
of propaganda that, if it is repeated often enough, even the Big Lie becomes accepted as
the truth.
Propaganda
As far back as 1928, Edward Bernays, Sigmund Freud's nephew, wrote in
his book Propaganda:
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the
masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this
unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling
power of our country. . . . The important thing is that [propaganda] is universal and
continuous; and in its sum total it is regimenting the public mind every bit as much as an
army regiments the bodies of its soldiers.[1, 2, 3]
Someone else, far more famous but perhaps not
as influential on a global and on-going basis, wrote
along similar lines even before that:
The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of
the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes,
necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field
of vision. ...
All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most
limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it
is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as
in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must
avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be
extended in this direction. ...
The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but
their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective
propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until
the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your
slogan....
The function of propaganda is, for example, not to weigh and ponder the rights of
different people, but exclusively to emphasize the one right which it has set out to argue
for. Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favors the
enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our
own right, always and unflinchingly.
Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter VI
The message with deregulation was simply: "Deregulation is good for the economy of
Alberta." That message was repeated incessantly. Therefore by now
virtually all Albertans bought into it. For the Big Lie to be universally accepted,
it only needs to be told over and over.
The tools by which to
inundate
the masses with propaganda have become far more persuasive and all-pervasive since Hitler's time
(off-site).
With deregulation, people never had a chance. It is surprising to see how many
people still insist that deregulation is good for them, even though it hurts them
enormously to pay for power and natural-gas bills that are now double and more than what
they were a little over a year ago (in 2000). Hitler knew it: never underestimate the enormous
capacity of the masses to forget. It doesn't help the people that their
representatives relentlessly repeat the propaganda message aimed at the masses:
We will continue to monitor energy
supplies and pricing and take appropriate action when necessary in the best interest of
all Albertans.
The Alberta Government is committed to putting more money back into the
pockets of Albertans.
Ed Stelmach (PC), Alberta Minister of
Transportation,
MLA Vegreville-Viking, 2002 04 19,
in his response to an open letter on utility pricing policies.
Ed Stelmach failed to explain how billions of dollars in
energy subsidies paid out of the pockets of Albertans, causing a massive shortfall in
funding in 2001, higher taxes in 2002 and massive defunding of medical services, and how
electrical power bills that are now double and triple of what they were in December of
2000 will put "money back into the pockets of Albertans." However, as far
as propaganda goes, the truth hardly matters and is an obstacle that is easily
overcome. What matters far more is to keep repeating the propaganda message
uniformly and to saturate the public with it until it is accepted by the vast majority of
people as the truth.[2, 3,
4
Update 2007 02 26
Premier Ed Stelmach and
King Canute not in Same League
Their respective attempts
to influence the forces of nature differ in scope and
objectives
Saturday, Feb. 24, 2006, Ed Stelmach, now
the new Premier of Alberta, said something more that is
clearly not compatible with, and contradicts, his 2002
promise of "putting more money back into the pockets of
Albertans". Responding to the rhetoric voiced by
David Suzuki during the latter's diesel-powered bus tour
across Canada, namely that Alberta needs to ease up on
oilsands developments until the industry catches up with
more efficient ways of extracting energy, Ed Stelmach
stated:
Tackling the issue of greenhouse-gas
reduction will require more than hot air and
grandstanding. It requires recognition that CO2
reductions will require sacrifice on behalf of all
Canadians in reducing individual energy consumption. (Edmonton
Journal, 2007 02 25)
"Sacrifice on behalf of all Canadians in
reducing individual energy consumption" certainly does not
sound like, and is incompatible with, "putting money back
into the pockets of Albertans." Moreover, Ed Stelmach
said something far more ominous on the day he indicated that
he flip-flopped from giving Albertans some of their money
back to announcing that they need to make sacrifices,
The truth is that Alberta's industry is
already leading the way in developing new methods —
particularly CO2 sequestration [that is:
the capturing of CO2 and disposing of
it so as to remove it from the environment - ed.] —
that are the best hope for significant greenhouse gas
reductions." (Ibid.)
The article that quotes him also states that
"Stelmach has established climate change as a priority for
the environment portfolio." Aside from the semantics
of that sentence indicating the opposite of what Stelmach
actually wishes to do, namely to make the prevention
or reduction of climate change a priority of the
Alberta government, Ed Stelmach does not seem to realize
that with statements like those he made he indicates that he
placed himself firmly into the camp of those that promote
the fanatic religion of the global-warming extremism foisted
on us by people such as Suzuki and cohorts.
It's the extremist global-warming religion that Ed Stelmach
adheres to and wishes to have not only Albertans but all
Canadians to make sacrifices for; but he distances himself
from some of the particular methods of promoting the
objectives of that religion as per David Suzuki.
Thereby Ed Stelmach embraces the global warming fanaticism
and distances himself from the global
warming science. That should be of great concern
to all Canadians, because what Ed Stelmach wishes to do will
inexorably drive up the costs of energy.
Ed Stelmach brings to mind King Canute:
Legend of the waves
Canute is perhaps best remembered for the legend of
how he commanded the waves to go back. According to the
legend, he grew tired of flattery from his courtiers.
When one such flatterer gushed that the king could even
command the obedience of the sea, Canute proved him
wrong by practical demonstration (at
Southampton or
Bosham; other sources say these events took place
near his palace at Westminster), to demonstrate that
even a king's powers have limits. Having demonstrably
failed to command the waves he removed his crown,
refusing to wear it again, claiming that there was no
true king except
Jesus. Thus it is quite possible that the legend is
even simply pro-Canute propaganda. However, the legend
is usually misunderstood to mean that he believed
himself so powerful that the natural elements would obey
him, and that his failure to command the tides only made
him look foolish. (Source
at Wikipedia)
King Canute was a wise. practical man and
astute politician. It appears that Ed Stelmach does not come close to
being as wise as King Canute was. In effect, Ed
Stelmach believes that by sequestering CO2 (and
having us pay for the enormous expense of doing that) he can
nullify, command and control the
variability of solar radiation and its interaction with
cosmic radiation that influence and modulate our global
climate. |
The calculations done by General Circulation Models (GCMs) are
the main source of the information that fuels the global warming hysteria.
Nevertheless, not one of them comes acceptably close to accurately calculating
what the climate presently is at any location, let alone of the whole Earth.
Not only that, but all of the GCMs differ widely from one another as to what the
climate was in the past, and as to what it is supposed to be in the future.
Therein lies the problem. No one in his right mind will base any decisions
about the future on tools that cannot determine with acceptable accuracy what
the present is and the past was.
We are now as dependent on electrical power as on the air
we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat, and it is just about as certain to be
available. That is why we take it for granted, and that is why we should resent that it is
being used to extort money from us.
There is nothing wrong with a reasonable rate of return on investment and
operating costs. Once upon a time, the rate of return for utility companies was held
and guaranteed at 6 percent per year. That was with respect to telecommunications,
with the power companies it is said to have been even less than that. It is
understandable that power prices may have to increase a little as time goes by, to allow
for the cost of inflation, but when the price for power is quadrupled overnight, that is
obscene, worse than usurious. It is worse than criminal. That's when the price of
electrical energy becomes a major cause of inflation.
When it is our own government that causes the price of power to quadruple
from one day to the next, it becomes very difficult to find expressions that can describe
how despicable and deplorable that is.
Electrical power didn't come to the Bruderheim rural area until 1948. The Bruderheim
REA is the oldest rural electrification association in Alberta. Certainly, some people had
their own generating plants then, but they were happy to give them up. Now they are
looking for alternatives to deregulated utilities. For some it's that or go
bankrupt.
Deregulation was and still is hard on the members of Alberta's
REAs. There are efforts to amalgamate, so as to benefit from the economics of scale,
but there also were subtle suggestions and not-so-subtle statements over the years, that
the REAs outlived their usefulness, that they should sell out to the power companies.
Of course, the power companies will make such suggestions. Their
primary objective is to make the biggest returns on their investment, not to make sure
that rural customers have power at a reasonable price and at a reasonable rate of return
to the power companies. The REAs are an obstacle to them. They want to be able
to charge for power what the market will bear. What better vehicle to do that with
is there than to charge what people are willing to pay for an essential service, a service without
which they can no longer exist.
Think again if you believe that attempts to abolish and
eradicate the REAs are anything new.
The status of the
Rural Electrification Administration was also a campaign issue. Goldwater had said in
Denver, Colorado on May 3, 1963 that the time had come "to dissolve the Rural
Electrification Administration." Wishing to appear as an orthodox Goldwater clone in
every respect, Bush had failed to distance himself from this demand. The REA was justly
popular for its efforts to bring electric power to impoverished sectors of the
countryside. Yarborough noted first of all that Bush "wouldn't know a cotton boll
from a corn shuck," but he insisted on leveling "so un-Texan a blow at the
farmers and ranchers of Texas. To sell the REAs in Texas to the private power monopoly
would be carrying out the demands of the big Eastern power structure and the wishes of the
New York investment bankers who handle the private power monopoly financing. My opponent
is in line to inherit his share of that New York investment banking structure,"
Yarborough told a gathering of Texas REA officials.
George Bush: The Unauthorized
Biography
by Webster G. Tarpley & Anton Chaitkin
Chapter -IX- "Bush Challenges
Yarborough for the Senate"
Nothing is new under the sun. It is just that our perception becomes a little sharper as we
become older, and if not, we'll be in for a rude awakening, unless we start pushing up
daisies first.
Of course, from as far back as Grandfather Prescott, the Bush family had and still has
very strong ties to very wealthy and extremely powerful banks. That explains why
George Bush Sr. wanted to have the REA wiped off the face of the Earth.
Do you ever wonder to whom Ralph Klein owes his allegiance?
It doesn't seem to be to the majority of Albertans, because those have the
screws tightened by him and his party big-time, unless you feel that ever
increasing provincial taxes, service fees that triple, quadruple and more,
and indirect taxation in the form of tripling and quadrupling the price of
power over night are truly good for us. A spreadsheet was used in
documenting an
analysis of trends in electric energy costs. The figures presented relate to an REA member whose monthly
power consumption is 1000kWh. The basic figures were calculated by applying the same
parameters that are used to calculate our power bills.
As of now the spreadsheet caters only to a 7.5kVA service, but
even if rates that apply to the other types of services that are being offered
will be incorporated, the end
result won't change much.
______________
PR!: A Social History of Spin,
By Stuart Ewen (1996, US$30.00 / hardcover / 496 pages, ISBN: 0-465-06168-0, Basic Books,
A Division of Harper Collins). If you wish to find out more about Edward Bernays,
search the Internet for <+"Edward Bernays" +propaganda> (excluding the
chevrons), about 826 URLs will be returned.
Television
and the Hive Mind, by Mack White
Freedom
of Expression
-
Without the help and eager collaboration
of various government sectors (e.g.: political activists in the
judiciary) and of public organizations, Hitler would not have been able
to succeed in spreading the Big Lie. An instance of how propaganda
is spread in modern times is provided through the story of Rigoberta
Menchú:
Salon Magazine, 1999 01 11
D A V I D_H
O R O W I T Z
I, Rigoberta Menchú,
liar
How left-wing propagandists, a fellow-traveling
Nobel committee and a corrupt media perpetrated a monstrous hoax.
The story of Rigoberta
Menchú, a Quiché Mayan from Guatemala whose autobiography catapulted
her to international fame, won her the Nobel Peace Prize and made
her an international emblem of the dispossessed indigenous peoples
of the Western Hemisphere and their attempt to rebel against the
oppression of European conquerors, has now been exposed as a
political fabrication, a tissue of lies. It is one of the greatest
hoaxes of the 20th century....(Full
Story)
|
Analysis
of the impact of deregulation
During 2001 we consumed power that had been contracted for at 18¢/kWh, an
increase of 13.81¢/kWh from the 4.19¢/kWh we had paid in the previous month.
Naturally, deregulating a commodity that had never been deregulated (in a market in which
there is essentially no competition) drove the price of power right through the ceiling.
The cozy pricing scheme that the power companies put in place for themselves didn't
help things either. (See Albertans seem to like being cheated.)
In addition to the higher price per kWh we have to pay to get electric
power delivered to us. The price for that was 1.27 cents per kWh for most of 2000
and 0.653 cents per kWh for most of 2001. In September of 2001 it increased again to
1.061 cents per kWh and there has been no change to that since then.
Instead of receiving power at a more advantageous price to consumers, many consumers (e.g:
factories and steel plants), had to introduce shift work, so as to be able to take
advantage of lower prices during the off-hours of consumption. Some of them closed
shop or moved elsewhere. The price for electrical power under the Alberta Advantage
was literally killing them.
It was a tough choice to make for Ralph Klein, tell the truth and lose votes in the 2001
elections, or fudge the figures. It was quite a gamble that catering to the few big
producers required of him, but it paid off. The voters, hooked on TV, peanuts, beer
and the "Alberta Advantage", never caught on.
The consumers lost out, but what is wrong with pulling the wool over their
eyes? It always worked before, didn't it? Why shouldn't it have worked
again? And it did work only too well, at a great cost to us all, and now we must
pay!
The subsidies came off January 1, 2002. To boot, we'll be paying for the next 30
months for a good portion of the price of power we consumed in 2001. As a result, our
March 2002 power bills were about twice as high or higher than they were for March 2000.
They'll stay up there for the next 30 months. Then they'll drop by about $25
a month, to get us hyped-up for the next provincial elections.
Here is a summary of what our choices were, to explain why we got served the dish we are
now having a tough time cramming down our throats. However, whether we want it or
not, down our throats it must go, all for "The Alberta Advantage." What
advantage? Tell the people that had to shut down their businesses.
The following graph (Figure 1) depicts the totals
shown on the power bill for a given member who uses power at the rate of 1000kWh/month,
for a few selected months during the 2001-2005 interval.
Figure 1
Update 2005 05 10: The 2004 provincial elections took
place 2004 11 22
The Progressive Conservative Party gained a 71.1% majority in the
Legislature.
23.9% of eligible voters voted Progressive Conservative.
The voter turnout was 54% of eligible voters.
And here is a more detailed picture, just in case you want to see it all.
Figure 2
Although the subsidies were set so that they would keep
the 2001 bottom line of the power bills just about the same they were at the end of 2000,
that looks pretty bad, doesn't it? However, if it was ever true that you shouldn't
look a gift-horse in the mouth, it is certainly true that we should beware of Greeks (or
politicians) bearing gifts, especially if in the end we wind up paying the price for the
gifts. The end is always important, and you can never tell the size of an animal
unless you look at all of it, not just the head or its start but all of it, including its
tail-end.
Figure 3
Update 2005 05 10: The 2004 provincial elections took
place 2004 11 22
The Progressive Conservative Party gained a 71.1% majority in the
Legislature.
23.9% of eligible voters voted Progressive Conservative.
The voter turnout was 54% of eligible voters.
The lower left-hand portion on that graph, containing the various items
from Jan. 2000 to Mar 2002, excluding the mounting debt of the rate shortfall that we
started to pay off during February 2002, that is what was presented to us on the bills we
received during the past two years. A picture of all that those bills identified is
presented in Figure 2. Unlike a bank or a
credit-card company or any other creditor, the power companies didn't want us to know just
how much we were in debt on the power we had bought during 2001. Figure 3 represents the whole truth, all of it. The
amount racked up by the consumer used in the example comes to $821.94.
What does all of that mean in relation to what you have to pay? The
green line in the following graph (Figure 4)
represents the bottom line on your bills, beginning in Jan. 2000, up to May 2005.
Figure 4
Update 2005 05 10: The 2004 provincial elections took
place 2004 11 22
The Progressive Conservative Party gained a 71.1% majority in the
Legislature.
23.9% of eligible voters voted Progressive Conservative.
The voter turnout was 54% of eligible voters.
The cost curves relate to someone who consumes 1000kWh/month.
The pink line represents what someone would have had
to pay, and pay in the future, if there were no further price changes, no taxpayer-funded
subsidy and no power on credit, and if Ralph Klein would not have given a darn whether he
would have lost votes in the last provincial elections or not.
The yellow line represents the same, except that power
was bought at seven cents credit for every kWh bought during 2001 and that that debt is
being paid off from Jan. 2002 to Jul. 2004.
The green line represents the same as
the yellow line and that the taxpayers chipped in about $75/month for the member. If
he had to pay more in taxes than that "gift" was worth, he didn't really receive
a gift, because he paid for it himself, and he had no say on what he could spend his money
on. The money went to the power companies. If he didn't have to pay any
provincial taxes at all during that time, he theoretically received a gift worth
$75/month. However, whether he paid taxes or not, all government services
deteriorated on account of the shortfall in taxes revenues that Ralph Klein caused by
dipping too deep and too often into the barrel to hand out those monthly
"gifts".
The blue line? That is what the
payment history and cost projection would have been if Ralph Klein would have left power
prices alone and would have catered to the people instead of to the power companies.
As to the estimated date for the next elections, surely Ralphie-Baby will get back in with
an overwhelming majority. If he managed to do it even though the bottom line on the
power bills didn't change before the 2001 elections, imagine what will happen when it drops
by $25 before the next elections! Surely the plan must be to win on account of that
so big and so overwhelmingly that the PCs will have to appoint an opposition from within
their own ranks.
The next graph, Figure 5, shows what the bottom lines will be for a range
of monthly consumption rates ranging from 0kWh to 10,000kWh per month. Note that the
first interval with higher power costs affects members with consumption rates of more than
1000kWh to a far greater extent than those with a 1000kWh or less. That's targeted
propaganda, propaganda for which we must pay. That's putting our money where our
mouth is, or, rather, having the government taking it out of our mouths. In true
Marxist fashion, it's taking from those that have to give to those in need: to the
government and power companies.
Instead of their bills staying the same as with members that use 1000kWh,
members that had to use more power than that saw their bills increase because their
consumption and not the residential subsidy becomes the controlling factor. Their bills
almost doubled. After the subsidies came off and they began to pay back their debt
that Ralph Klein and the power companies caused them to rack up, their bills more than
doubled, compared to the bills they received at the end of 2000.
After they are finished paying back the rate shortfall, they'll still be
paying twice what they had to pay for December of 2000. I bet that for a lot of them
the dream of the "Alberta Advantage" is more like a nightmare. Consider
that a lot of them have trouble scratching enough money together to hold their bankers
from foreclosing.
For someone in the 10,000kWh per month range, to have to begin making 31
monthly payments of $269 in addition to power costs that doubled and whatever else they
must cover surely can't be easy.
Figure 5
Update 2005 05 10: The 2004 provincial elections took
place 2004 11 22
The Progressive Conservative Party gained a 71.1% majority in the
Legislature.
23.9% of eligible voters voted Progressive Conservative.
The voter turnout was 54% of eligible voters.
The total cost of deregulation to the citizens of Alberta is in the
billions, and now our taxes are going up some more to pay for it all. Nobody has
made an attempt to estimate the true cost to all of us, and if the government ever did,
they sure aren't telling us, but let's take a guess.
Let's say that there are about a million residential services in Alberta.
Let's say that they used an average of 12,000kWh during 2001. For that year
alone, and not counting any other consequences, the cost increase as per the power bills
to residents would then amount to a provincial total of roughly $1.8 billion.
Of course, the government got back a few hundred millions in taxes from the
energy producers. However, we are footing the bill for the horrendous profits that
the power producers raked in on account of the price increase of 374 percent that they
engineered for themselves. We have to pay back the debt racked up, and we have to
pay higher taxes now to fill back in the hole that Ralph Klein's Folly dug for us, but I'm
afraid that the hole is so deep now, we'll never get out of it again.
To add to it all, we still have to consider that even if we had paid for the
higher price for power right on the spot, without buying any of it on credit, the basic
cost of power to us is still $50/month higher now than it was before deregulation.
That adds another $1.8 billion, just for the three years shown on the graph taking us into
2005.
But that is still not the end of the story. Residential services
account only for a small fraction of all power used. Power used in industry went up
in price, too. Those cost increases to manufacturers are of course passed on to the
end consumers, who then pay for those cost increases as well. Does anybody want to
make a go at guessing how many billions are involved in that? *
* Update 2006 03 19: At the
discussion forum of the 2004 Annual General Meeting and Conference of
the Alberta Federation of REAs, an estimate of the costs to consumers of
the consequences of deregulation was put forth and not disputed by any
of the government officials on the discussion panel, $20 billion -
representing the costs of deregulation of gas and electricity. The
question was whether the government would be able to estimate whether those
costs would ever be compensated for through cumulative advantages of
deregulation to consumers. The government official who responded
stated that that would not happen in the foreseeable future, but that,
if all the aspects of deregulation would ever be implemented and handled
properly, advantages to consumers would eventually come about.
Why does anyone think Ralph Klein is a hero? He
appears to be
the worst and most expensive premier we ever had. Is it possible that his conscience
is bothering him, and that that is what is driving him to drink so much?
Note:
You can look at all of these graphs and more, look at the figures
from which they were produced, and enter your own figures to convince yourself of the
extent to which we all have been shafted, shafted good. Download the spreadsheet
model and play around with it. (A zipped XLS file, 160kB)
The spreadsheet is protected, so as to prevent the wrong data from being
entered by accident and causing it to dysfunction, but you can enter your own monthly
power consumption figures and see the full extent to which you, personally, have been and
will be affected. The various tables and graphs will all be updated with each figure
you enter.
The protection can be taken off the spreadsheet, in case you want to make
changes to it to adapt it to different rates in different REAs. If you
, I'll give you the password
(write "spreadsheet" in the subject header of the message) and will tell you how
to take the protection off (it's easy to do). However, before you make changes to
the layout, first make a copy of the original file and keep it in a safe place, so that
you'll have something to go back to if things don't work out with the changes you make.
Related article:
If you find the explanations offered on this page too difficult to understand, and I
can't blame you at all if you do, you can always try the explanation offered by the
Alberta Government: Understanding your power
bill. It is possible but not likely that there you'll find the answers
you seek.
|
__________________
Posted 2002 03 25
Updates:
2002 03 26 (added graphs and comments relating to the details
of the cost of deregulation)
2002 03 27 (added four paragraphs to
introduction (the paragraphs preceding the first occurrence of "deregulation"). Expanded the first sentence in the comments following Figure 2)
2002 04 04 (to add a reference to the explanation by
the Alberta Government and the Alberta Government's explanation
as to why we got shafted)
2002 04 10 (to incorporate comments about propaganda)
2002 04 20 (to insert quote by Edward Bernays on
propaganda, and quote from Ed Stelmach's response
to an open letter on utility pricing policies)
2002 12 23 (added references to Television and the Hive Mind and
to Freedom of Expression)
2006 04 19 (added update on the cost of deregulation,
also added note 4 and reference to note 4)
2007 02 26 (added comparison between King Canute
and Premier Ed Stelmach)
2007 05 21 (added link to comments on modern tools
of propaganda)
|