A while ago I told some politically interested people about the difference between publicly-owned SMUD (Sacramento Municipal Utility District) and privately-owned PG&E (Pacific Gas & Electric).
It turns out SMUD’s electricity rates are roughly 35 percent cheaper than PG&E’s. In addition, PG&E has had to settle lawsuits for their poor infrastructure maintenance, including an explosion of a gas line in a residential San Bruno neighborhood, and power lines causing the fires that, among other things, burned down the ironically-named town of Paradise.
At one point, PG&E executives were consulting with attorneys about their liability in criminal negligence lawsuits for these little faux pas.
My conclusion, declared aloud: “Socialism! It’s cheaper and works better.” The conservatives present opened their eyes wide in astonishment. One “liberal” said, “Well, that’s your opinion!”
Yes, the “s” word (“socialism”) is taboo! The idea of public ownership must be unspeakably bad!
In an odd coincidence, this meeting was in a publicly-owned building, in the midst of a publicly-owned park to which we had all driven over publicly-owned roads. We all drank water from publicly-owned water districts, and our sewage was processed in a publicly-owned regional sewer plant.
Several of us were of the age that we enjoyed public pensions and (socialist!) Social Security, never mind the (socialist!) single-payer healthcare for the elderly we call “Medicare.”
The idea that something so ubiquitous as public ownership would be taboo, even shocking, is simply bizarre. Yet, that is the current state of play in the US. Anti-socialism has been so heavily marketed that many people simply can’t conceive of something good coming from public ownership.
This doesn’t imply that public ownership is perfect. Just like privately-owned PG&E, SMUD has made mistakes. SMUD’s mothballed nuclear reactor would be one example. But profit-driven PG&E thought skimping on maintenance would be a good way to boost stock prices and dividends, and SMUD has none of that motivation.
Publicly-sponsored projects help private industries too. If you have a smartphone, roughly 80 percent of the inventions it uses—cell technology, GPS, lithium-ion batteries, etc.—are the fruits of government-funded research.
Economist Mariana Mazzucato says 75 percent of innovative pharmaceuticals come from government-funded research. Privately-owned big Pharma tends to spend its money on marketing (55 percent of gross profits) not research and development (15 percent). And big Pharma spends most of that private R&D on extending the life of already-patented drugs (think “time-release Viagra”).
The government also had a hand in lots of Silicon Valley companies, supplying startup grants to the likes of Google, Yahoo! and Apple—all of whom had immigrant founders, incidentally.
But socialism is taboo. And immigration is a burden.
During big emergencies—World War II is a good example—government takes over large swaths of the economy. WWII meant the government took over 50 percent of the US economy. The supposedly unaffordable Green New Deal would only consume five percent of the current economy.
During a break in this meeting, one of the facilitators spoke to me, saying that if I had my way, his 401K which consisted of stock in privately-owned companies would diminish, impoverishing his retirement.
I had to remind him that the stock market took a dive all on its own in 2007. The trouble with this point of view is that it believes burning up the planet to make bigger profits is okey-doke. What would his 401K wealth buy then? Nothing but ash would be for sale. Not very sensible.
All of which goes to show that it’s easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled.
(Note: The author had the interactions described at a meeting of political opponents called “Better Angels” —now called “Braver Angels” —sponsored by Sacramento County Supervisor Sue Frost.)
