Lots of downvotes - can HN offer any counter arguments? Surely you guys use logic to build circuits and algorithms, not down votes.

Please read the site guidelines (all the way to the end) and follow them when commenting here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Supposedly a key problem with those nationalizations is nepotism. Venezuela nationalizes this or that company, and replaces their leadership & upper management with friends & allies of the regime- who happen to know nothing at all about producing sugar or oil.

Presumably if California nationalized PG&E, it would be run by people with experience running utilities, not Hunter Newsom.

Government entities have NO incentive to improve their quality of service from year to year. If they fix it, they get less tax money. If they don't fix it, they get more money. This over the years becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Look at all the failed communist states and you will see the same pattern. Remember Venezuela was one of the most educated, wealthiest latin countries at the end of the 90's.

All I can tell you is that my municipal utility (electric & freshwater/stormwater/wastewater) has been running for decades, and has very competitive costs & high customer satisfaction. Oh, and all our power lines are buried.

> Remember Venezuela was one of the most educated, wealthiest latin countries at the end of the 90's.

Then the price of Oil skyrocketed in the '00s, and the USA began destroying and sanctioning the economy to keep those oil rates high. This is the same reason Iran has sanctions, protecting the USA and OPEC.

Neither do monopolies, like PG&E. Their profits are guaranteed at 10%, they can raise utility rates as they see fit, to cover expenses (The state has some influence, but it does not exercise it), and the shareholders are not personally liable for any malfeasance by the firm.

It's essentially a license to print money, with no incentives to improve. If you don't like their service, there's no competing power provider you can switch to. If you don't like them starting wildfires, you can sue them, and end up paying for your own lawsuit out of your next power bill. If you don't like them deferring maintenance, while paying shareholders dividends, you can... Complain on the internet?

At least with a state-owned utility, if you don't like how it's ran, you can always exercise your democratic rights to vote someone in who can fix it. Surely, of the 39.5 million people in California, you may be able to find one politician who knows how to run a business? Or knows how to hire managers that know how to run a business?

The CPUC (state regulators) control almost everything about what PG&E is allowed to budget and charge.

Here's an example:

http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M102/K3...

Since the state failed at controlling PG&E's budget, why should the state be trusted with further control?

I mean, no? Seems like it's the worst of both worlds.

Why not simply cancel their government-mandated monopoly, as was done with the phone line carriers, and let companies like Tesla compete on a per-city basis?

Because that's working out so well with internet providers, with somewhere around half the country having only one choice of provider?

Who granted Comcast monopoly over your coaxial cable? Your local government. Luckily free market competition is finding ingenious solutions around it, such as DSL, 5G wireless, and SpaceX's satellite internet.

What makes sugar companies similar to power companies? You haven't described particular regulatory or administrative policies that hurt Venezuela and will be applied here. Every thing isn't equivalent to every other thing.

Why is it automatically the case that (for example) administrative policies set in place by government regulators in Venezuela couldn't already be set in place by PG&E's private administrators?

You can't just respond to every federal agency with "just like sugar companies in Venezuela". It's absurd.

> Why is it automatically the case that (for example) administrative policies set in place by government regulators in Venezuela couldn't already be set in place by PG&E's private administrators?

PG&E employees are not guaranteed salaries, pensions and benefits by the state. This means they need to stay competitive as they may get fired if revenues drop.

PG&E is a monopoly. In the vast majority of cases you can't shop around for electricity or gas service, the only alternative is to go without electricity and/or gas service. In the event that a competitor tries to enter the market it will take a colossal capital outlay just to connect the first customer with no guarantee of profit. Nobody is going to do it. Lastly the rates are set by the state not PG&E so their income is quite predictable. Working harder at PG&E doesn't mean you're going to affect their bottom line, this isn't a factory making widgets or software company making code.

What happened when the phone line monopolies were terminated? What happened to the quality and price of calls?

You do recall what happened the last time California opened up the electricity markets?

Depends on the country, but in mine the breakup coincided with the internet boom that resulted in improved quality and reduced prices. Then they let the infrastructure rot for 20 years and the government had to step in to rebuild it.

Which nationalized entity would you like to emulate? Please provide one nationalized company that is an example of quality and value we can emulate. Would you like your power to operate like the DMV?

Apart from the schools, the roads, the post office, the hospitals? No I can't think of many. Electricity and banking would have been on that list before they were privatized though.

As for Venezuela, they've also been subject to US sanctions when the privatize something, so cause and effect are hard to determine.

China is doing well wrt infrastructure.