• PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 months ago

    It is a technical problem of how can you convince electrical companies to overcome a problem they have no financial incentive to solve.

    • dubious@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      that’s not a technical problem. that’s a weakness of the people’s resolve problem. we can, at any time, force them to do the right thing.

      • PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’m aware its not a technical problem, I was using the word ironically to point out the person I was responding to was wrong to say it…

        Also saying we can at any time fix a problem is just being ignorant of the many near impossible steps needed to fix the problem. In this case the problem is capitalism. We could come up with ways to end capitalism or make capitalism work in the interest of humanity, but will it realistically ever happen? No it wont, private money won, look at the topics discussed for presidential debate, never a mention of doing something about private capital owning Washington. Just super effective wedge issues.

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          You’re being too broad. We don’t need to undo all of capitalism here. Nationalising the electric grid is a reasonable solution to this particular problem.

          • PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            What incentive does a politician have to support nationalizing the power grid? It wont be a super splashy issue to tackle so it isnt worth doing it for the credit, and the different power companies of the world will just put their money into buying opposition to your effort anyways.

            That’s the problem with capitalism is that any single thing you would want to do that would impact some cocksuckers capital, and the threat alone makes it a necessity to pay to win in congress. Usually the only way stuff like this happens is because there is new capital entering the market that can afford to donate against the old capital to overtake them. Its just rich assholes all the way down.

            • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              If the government seizes control of a major industry, that’s a lot of power and opportunity for politicians. It’s already been done in some local areas, and it had the broad support of the people because “the electric company is gouging us, the gov should take it over” is an easy sell.

              • PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                I just don’t think it’s feasible at a federal level. Or even for some states (Newsom refusing to do anything about SDGE comes to mind) It’s so easy to cry socialism about this topic too.

                I also think there might be a disconnect between government power and politician power.