|
|
|
December 14, 2007
Roots
In the last month or so I have posted a couple of pieces on government interference with industry. One post contained this quote from Thomas Edison: "Any extension of the Government into business affairs -- no matter what the pretense and no matter how the extension is labeled -- will be bound to promote waste and put a curb on our prosperity and progress." --Thomas Alva EdisonThe other post (Its Taxing To Make A Buck) was about GE and other companies trying to get coal fired electrical plants banned in order to profit from the ban. Now what is so ironic about all this is that Edison founded General Electric. What is even more ironic about all this is that Edison was at war with Westinghouse to determine if AC or DC distribution of electricity was to be the favored standard. Edison carried out a campaign to discourage the use of alternating current, including spreading information on fatal AC accidents, killing animals, and lobbying against the use of AC in state legislatures. Edison directed his technicians, primarily Arthur Kennelly and Harold P. Brown, to preside over several AC-driven executions of animals, primarily stray cats and dogs but also unwanted cattle and horses. Acting on these directives, they were to demonstrate to the press that alternating current was more dangerous than Edison's system of direct current. Edison's series of animal executions peaked with the electrocution of Topsy the Elephant. He also tried to popularize the term for being electrocuted as being "Westinghoused".So despite Edison's great rhetoric, I think he really meant that he was against government interference in his business. He was not against using it against his competitors. You have to keep an eye on these boys. We are lucky Westinghouse won the battle because the AC system was technically better. Just think of how much it would have delayed progress if Edison had been able to get a national ban on AC electrical transmission. In a way we are faced with the same prospect. GE wants to get its cheaper competitors banned (fossil fuels) so it can profit from the sales of its higher cost production methods. They aren't doing anything unusual here. Just reverting to their roots. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon on 12.14.07 at 08:44 PM
Comments
A brilliant friend, Mark LaRochelle of the Education and Research Institute, once characterized laissez-faire as a compromise. Each of the persons or institutions that agrees to it does so because he/it can't have what he/it really wants: the privilege of doing exactly as he pleases to everyone else while the rest of them are restrained from interfering with him. Given that the others would never allow anyone that privilege, laissez-faire is the best deal he can get. Francis W. Porretto · December 15, 2007 06:17 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
January 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
January 2008
December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSALLAMERICANGOP See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Is Huckabee simply the anti-Romney?
• Callipyginous • Ephebiphobia on the campaign trail? • Policy Of Blockade • HAPPY NEW YEAR! • slanted or planted? • Stifling diversity in the name of diversity? Insensitivity in the name of sensitivity? • Fred's Message To Iowans • A Marine Needs Help • Recreating a past we only imagine
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I remember when my ex-wife was president of the nurses union. She asked me how she could make sure four-year degree nurses weren't replaced with cheaper, two-year degree nurses.
Easy, says I. Have the legislature mandate four-year degree nurses for certain types of nursing.
She did. They did. The law is now screwed up. Four-year degree nurses are being used when less expensive labor, the two-year degree nurse (their Sistahs) are being discriminated against.
Sadly, the only time she ever listened to me. It's true. Blame higher medical costs on me.