Re: Paul D. on this year's Nobel--especially V. Smith

[Bob McKenzie <bobmck@xxxxxxxx>]

Mr. Liu doesn't have it right.  First of all, the "public" wasn't sold
anything nor did it "doubt" the claims of lower consumer prices.  It's
easy enough to check the record - the dereg bill (AB 1966) was
completely rewritten mostly behind closed doors and then sailed through
each house on unanimous votes.  No one of significance noticed that
half, not all, of the "market" was unhooked or noted what that
would/could mean.  So Vernon Smith's argument - that deregulation
should be total or complete - is not only valid but admirable in light
of the many calls to re-regulate based on the false impression (and in
part the on the deliberately misleading charge by some) that "dereg"
didn't work.

Bob McKenzie


On Wednesday, Oct 16, 2002, at 17:29 US/Pacific, Henry C.K. Liu wrote:

> Smith's article showed complete ignorance on the California energy
> crisis. He
> forgot the de-regulation was sold to Calipfornia by the promise of low
> cost to
> soncumers.  When the public doubted the claim, de-regulators agreed to
> accept a
> price ceiling.  The de-regulators forgot the same thing LTCM forgot,
> that one
> can lose money as fast as one can make a windfall in speculation, if
> fraud is
> not permitted.  His proposed solution is so simplistic that is
> laughable.  By
> making the poor do their laundray at 3 a.m. will bring price stability?
>
> paul davidson wrote:
>
> > .  If Gary Mongovi still believes that Nobel prize winner Vernon
> > Smith is a
> > gift horse for heterodox views he should read Vernon Smith's op-ed
> > Wall
> > Street Journal piece in today's (October 16) issue -- where Smith
> > argues
> > that all the electrical energy problems in California are the result
> > of
> > government regulation and if there was only a free market in
> > electrical
> > energy the optimal result would occur.
> >
> > With gifts like that who needs suicide bombers?
> >
> > Paul