5 ms·

The system should either break even (which it doesn't do), or cost money (which means taxpayers subsidise it), or make money (which means users subsidise other

The system should either break even (which it doesn't do), or cost money (which means taxpayers subsidise it), or make money (which means users subsidise other taxpayers) The question is to what extent should grid connections to new rural homes be subsidised by taxpayers, which is of course a political decision - just like to what extent roads, military, healthcare, education, oil production, etc should be subsidised. A better solution may be to allow the subsidiy money to be used to provide grants for off-grid. It may be better for the taxpyer to give someone $30k to sort their power out, than to spend $40k on an electric line to their house.

neilwilson 5y ago
"he system should either break even (which it doesn't do), or cost money (which means taxpayers subsidise it), or make money (which means users subsidise other taxpayers)" That assumes a fixed amount of money and a fixed amount of stuff. Neither of which is the case in a country with its own floating exchange rate like Canada. Government doesn't spend money, it spends people. What else were you proposing to do with the electrical engineer that is so much more important than maintaining electrical grid connections to citizens?
- iso1210 5y ago
  You can of course print money instead of raising taxes but the principle's the same. Lets rephrase it then. How many hours of electrical engineer time should be spent hooking up a new home in rural Ontario? Why would an electrical engineer who lives in the Toronto suburbs want to do this? How much time and effort should a country devote to running and maintaining this connection? What does the engineer get in return? Either he gets more in return (thus "makes money"), gets less in return (thus "requires subsidy") or it's even (thus "breaks even") How much should the person who wants to live in rural ontario give for the engineer's time? It seems Canada decides they should give a little, but not the same amount of time the engineer gives (and instead the engineer should be compensated by time from the rest of the country) As to what that electrical engineer could be doing that would be better? Well how about fixing the electrics in a childrens hospital? Or maybe they could spend the day working on their garden, or watching netflix.
  - neilwilson 5y ago
    "Well how about fixing the electrics in a childrens hospital?" Do they not have their own engineers? In which case what are you doing about the shortage of engineers. Again this is all fixed amount thinking. Are you sure you are supply limited in engineers? It's only then that you need to think about taxation. And then the taxation has to be targeted at those using engineers - to free them up for the public use. Are you absolutely sure all engineers and equipment is engaged doing things that are required? There isn't a fixed amount of stuff, and if there is any unemployment at all then there is capacity to expand. "Or maybe they could spend the day working on their garden, or watching netflix." Why should engineers work any less hours a week than anybody else? The person growing their food needs to work a full week, why not engineers? Government deploys resources, not money. And whether those resources are used hooking up people to the grid, or fitting out another server room for Pornhub is a political choice, not a financial one.
vehemenz 5y ago
> The question is to what extent should grid connections to new rural homes be subsidised by taxpayers, which is of course a political decision 100% agree. Not only that, but rural development is inherently connected to these other subsidies. Rural populations tend to have worse education, worse health outcomes, and more expensive roads/mile/capita. Not to mention the negative political externalities rural populations produce (maybe a modern US-only phenomenon).
- mindslight 5y ago
  > the negative political externalities rural populations produce I'd argue that the causality goes the other way - people move to rural areas to escape the demands of the high-interdependency core. And I'd say much of our political divide is from that highly connected core extending its influence into the previously left-alone areas, first through broadcast media consolidation and now through social media and its consolidation.
  - nknezek 5y ago
    I agree that many people move away from cities to "escape", but it's important to recognize that for many decades now, rural residents have received significantly more benefits from the government than they pay in taxes, while urban dwellers pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits. Essentially, those who live in cities are living within their means and subsidizing those who live in rural areas. From an economic perspective, rural areas are still highly connected and interdependent - think roads, infrastructure, food, water, electricity, internet, transport networks. Those who move from cities to rural areas to "escape the demands of the high-interdependency core" simply shift from majority "producing" to majority "receiving" benefits from our interdependent society. I'm a huge fan of rural living, but it is expensive. We as a society have decided to subsidize it to various degrees. I'm OK with this, but also think cheap, individual solutions should be used when feasible. For example, sewer lines are very expensive in rural areas, so most houses maintain their own septic tank. Rural houses often use a Propane tank they refill rather than a gas line hookup. They often have their own well for water. Thus, the high grid-connection fees in the article make sense, as rural residents can just build their own off-grid electricity production.

neilwilson 5y ago

"he system should either break even (which it doesn't do), or cost money (which means taxpayers subsidise it), or make money (which means users subsidise other taxpayers)" That assumes a fixed amount of money and a fixed amount of stuff. Neither of which is the case in a country with its own floating exchange rate like Canada. Government doesn't spend money, it spends people. What else were you proposing to do with the electrical engineer that is so much more important than maintaining electrical grid connections to citizens?

iso1210 5y ago
You can of course print money instead of raising taxes but the principle's the same. Lets rephrase it then. How many hours of electrical engineer time should be spent hooking up a new home in rural Ontario? Why would an electrical engineer who lives in the Toronto suburbs want to do this? How much time and effort should a country devote to running and maintaining this connection? What does the engineer get in return? Either he gets more in return (thus "makes money"), gets less in return (thus "requires subsidy") or it's even (thus "breaks even") How much should the person who wants to live in rural ontario give for the engineer's time? It seems Canada decides they should give a little, but not the same amount of time the engineer gives (and instead the engineer should be compensated by time from the rest of the country) As to what that electrical engineer could be doing that would be better? Well how about fixing the electrics in a childrens hospital? Or maybe they could spend the day working on their garden, or watching netflix.
- neilwilson 5y ago
  "Well how about fixing the electrics in a childrens hospital?" Do they not have their own engineers? In which case what are you doing about the shortage of engineers. Again this is all fixed amount thinking. Are you sure you are supply limited in engineers? It's only then that you need to think about taxation. And then the taxation has to be targeted at those using engineers - to free them up for the public use. Are you absolutely sure all engineers and equipment is engaged doing things that are required? There isn't a fixed amount of stuff, and if there is any unemployment at all then there is capacity to expand. "Or maybe they could spend the day working on their garden, or watching netflix." Why should engineers work any less hours a week than anybody else? The person growing their food needs to work a full week, why not engineers? Government deploys resources, not money. And whether those resources are used hooking up people to the grid, or fitting out another server room for Pornhub is a political choice, not a financial one.

vehemenz 5y ago

> The question is to what extent should grid connections to new rural homes be subsidised by taxpayers, which is of course a political decision 100% agree. Not only that, but rural development is inherently connected to these other subsidies. Rural populations tend to have worse education, worse health outcomes, and more expensive roads/mile/capita. Not to mention the negative political externalities rural populations produce (maybe a modern US-only phenomenon).

mindslight 5y ago
> the negative political externalities rural populations produce I'd argue that the causality goes the other way - people move to rural areas to escape the demands of the high-interdependency core. And I'd say much of our political divide is from that highly connected core extending its influence into the previously left-alone areas, first through broadcast media consolidation and now through social media and its consolidation.
- nknezek 5y ago
  I agree that many people move away from cities to "escape", but it's important to recognize that for many decades now, rural residents have received significantly more benefits from the government than they pay in taxes, while urban dwellers pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits. Essentially, those who live in cities are living within their means and subsidizing those who live in rural areas. From an economic perspective, rural areas are still highly connected and interdependent - think roads, infrastructure, food, water, electricity, internet, transport networks. Those who move from cities to rural areas to "escape the demands of the high-interdependency core" simply shift from majority "producing" to majority "receiving" benefits from our interdependent society. I'm a huge fan of rural living, but it is expensive. We as a society have decided to subsidize it to various degrees. I'm OK with this, but also think cheap, individual solutions should be used when feasible. For example, sewer lines are very expensive in rural areas, so most houses maintain their own septic tank. Rural houses often use a Propane tank they refill rather than a gas line hookup. They often have their own well for water. Thus, the high grid-connection fees in the article make sense, as rural residents can just build their own off-grid electricity production.