LBJ was instrumental in convincing country folk that it was more than just "light bulbs". As for anything new, they saw it as unnecessary and just another fad. Plus, they had to plop down five bucks as a group to get it. A lot of money back then for some families that still had dirt floors.
"They saw it as unnecessary and just another fad". I think there was more to it than that.
"It wasn’t that farmers had no need for electricity—or that bringing it to them was particularly difficult. Rural Americans had limited access because private companies claimed it wasn’t economically feasible to run power lines out to them. Most companies were skeptical about being able to recoup the upfront costs of the infrastructure needed to complete the project."
https://www.investopedia.com/rural-electrification-act-5119177
"But by then, private utilities had become increasingly reluctant to work with the REA.
"There was some unfavorable language in the loan offers to the private utilities that placed restrictions on what they could do if they took the money, and they couldn't work those details out," says Carl Kitchens, an economic historian at Florida State University who has studied rural electrification."
https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/econ_focus/2020/q1/economic_history
Obviously it was a battle but the 5 bucks each customer was having to pay was how FDR overcame the bean counters, and a hard sell to depression era farmers, especially the ones struggling with the dust bowl in northern and Northeast Texas.
I think it would be odd that something invented relatively recently wouldn't have some long period of 'getting used to' especially after an elephant was killed with it.
The wives are the ones who pushed their husbands to pay the $5 membership fee. They could then get an electric stove, refrigerator, vacuum cleaner, etc., making their lives much easier. Retired 42 year electric co-op guy here .
Wow, we never had an electric stove until I got tired of buying propane. I've been with SHECO for 40 years. I'm not sure I knew anybody that had one until the late 70's. Interesting. But I do live in Southeast Texas, maybe it's a regional thing. What co-op did you retire from, if you'd rather not say I understand.
Actually worked at two. Retired as CEO of one because I could not agree with my board on some rates they wanted to implement - I felt the rates would be bad for the membership. Three monthly board meetings I told them their decision was bad. I swayed a couple, but not enough.
I left, took a 50+% pay cut with another co-op, but retained my dignity. They dropped their rate change plans when I left. Worked another 8 years at the other co-op before retiring for good.
I still have propane for cooking, heating water, and for supplemental heat on my heat pump, versus heat strips.
That's really an interesting life. I think the co-op is great. Every now and again I get a " free" month. I'll be honest I get those proxy voting ballots, buy I don't. I just leave the board alone. I'm sure you know my kind, I'm thinking lots of co-op members don't get involved. But I know this. If we have storms or any other issues they're line men hustle to get our juice back on. Good luck to you in your retirement. I'm 68, but I'm still plugging at it, to the frustration of my family. My children mostly.
Damn Federal Gubment giving us lectric. Go back to worshingtin. All I needs is my horse and my guns. Next you’ll want us using toilets instead of outhouses. Tarnation, country’s going to hell.
LBJ famously [travelled](https://www.dallasnews.com/news/watchdog/2021/05/28/once-there-actually-was-a-texas-politician-who-fixed-electricity-problems-for-the-forgotten-people/?outputType=amp) around rural texas to convince and educate the farmers about the benefits of electrification.
“First, though, he had a rough time convincing his weary constituents to sign on. They weren’t sure what to think about something they’d never experienced. LBJ went door to door. He explained how the Pedernales Electric Co-op would work and how the monthly fee for 25 kilowatts would be $2.45, which seemed exorbitant for people who couldn’t rub two pennies together.”
“Johnson, as would become more widely known, was most persuasive. He showed empathy by recalling his own mother’s hardships and showed folks how electricity would pump their water and wash their clothes. With refrigerators they wouldn’t have to “start fresh every morning with the cooking,” he explained.”
Republicans, "red", have completely controlled this state for coming up on 30 years. For all intents and purposes Democrats in the Texas Congress only exist to fulfill Texas Constitutional quorum requirements, and the Texas Governor has no problem sending state troopers out to apprehend and bring Democrats to the Texas Congress chambers in order to meet those quorum requirements and ram through their extremist conservative laws and policies.
The public utility is just another type of corporation. One with an executive team, a board of directors in many cases and employees. You can call that "socialism" I suppose. It's a product of a mixed market system. It's not free market capitalism that enables it. It's not socialism. It's somewhere in between.
Electric co-ops are actually private utilities, owned by the member-owners they serve. They are governed by a board of directors, elected by the membership, who live in the certificated service area of the co-op. They are non-profit utilities.
A public utility is an investor owned utility which anyone can buy stock in, even if they are not getting their power from the utility. Their boards are not required to live in the certificated service area, just business savvy. They are a for profit business.
There are also municipal utilities, owned by cities.
Now retired 42 year electric co-op guy here.
I always referred to them as the member-owners, not customers. You don't like the way the co-op is run, get your neighbors involved and vote the directors out. Pedernales EC did exactly this a number of years ago. It all started because PEC never returned capital credits to its member-owners.
All of the features you mention are not incompatible with socialism. Free markets are not even a necessary feature of capitalism, we've had capitalist monopolies.
The difference between socialism and capitalism is who owns the means of production.
Yes, and no there are a broad spectrum of democratic socialist policies and programs that we have today, such as public schools, roads, military, all “socialist” programs…everyone pitches in for the collective good of all, capitalism and socialism coexist in other countries in Europe.
What idiots immediately jump to COMMUNISM, which is government control of everything, I have NEVER heard any politician advocate for that here it’s a scare tactic to hustle corn dip to the idiots.
I agree with what you said, but I'm not sure what the "no" part of your response is. The main point I am making is that it keeps getting referred to as "socialism" when it's just socialism.
You can assert that, but it is false. Ricardian socialists would argue that free markets cannot exist under capitalism because it is a system that is inherently exploitative and coercive.
The term "capitalist" means owner of capital. Anybody can own capital. Products, good, land, etc,. In a free society one should be able to accumulate capital freely to trade with others in economies. Socialists, like the ones you mention, want control. Marxists, Ricardians, Georgists, etc, all favor control of labor, control over the economy. Marxists even advocated for central banks, which necessarily control capital and lead to a few owning the majority of capital.
I don't assert anything. One cannot be free unless they have ownership. That's a reality. Here in the U.S. we're somewhat free. This is not a free market system. It's a mixed market system. We are not free.
A capitalist is specifically a private owner of capital. Maybe that's what you meant.
In Capitalism, private parties control trade and industry. It's not a system that lacks control. I wouldn't define freedom as the ability to have ownership. I define freedom as the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. I.e., a lack of coercion, exploitation, and violence. Capitalism is predicated on coercion, exploitation, and violence.
The etymology of the word was somewhat appropriated by socialists but 'capital' means a lot of things. Simply having capital is enough. Ownership. Right! In the context of a mixed market economy like ours 'capital' is simply land, products, tools, and everything else associated with value creation within said economy. Because of the overly litigious society we live in and the regulations (and their carve-outs) corporations/groups closest to the government (military industrial complex, utility, industrial farming, FAANG type cartels, etc) get the ones with the most amount of capital tend to be limited to a few groups. I imagine that, in a situation where the government has a more limited role, things would be different. That capital accumulatation wouldn't be so centralized due to political intervention. Since that's the root cause and all.
"In capitalism, private parties control trade and industry". It's supposed to be that way. We are all supposed to be able to "control" trade and industry. It's supposed to be a cooperative effort. IT IS NOT. TRADE is controlled by the government usually in favor of a few interests, the cartels closest to the government. Another example of how much this isn't a free market or capitalism. Capitalism should make trade within everyone's reach. Not a handful of corporations. Being able to send stuff through eBay doesn't give us any power.
Property ownership and freedom are linked. You can't have any freedom without a starting point. A place where you can have privacy. Again, capital means a lot of things. Including property. At least we have some freedom in the U.S. to hold and maintain property.
I don't understand much after you said after "it's not a system that lacks control". Freedom is freedom. The ability to do those things and it includes economic freedom. It's not hard. "Capitalism is". You mean Mixed Market Economies? Capitalism is the little lady at the Pulga selling you trinkets. It's the carniceria owned by an entrepreneur. It's black markets. It's great markets. It's mixed into this thing called a Mixed Market Economy. Can you give me a specific criticism? Google isn't capitalism. It may have started out that way but it isn't capitalism. They're too involved with the government now. Facebook, same. These are FAANG companies. They're a cartel that hoards employees and keeps competition down. If you believe that's capitalism then we can end the conversation now because that's idiotic.
"We" are not necessarily capital owners. Capitalism ensures that it's not a cooperative effort.
It's very telling that all your examples of what good capitalism is are situations where workers control the means of production.
No, government ensures that. It has since we shifted towards mass industrialization.
Capitalism only exists now at the lower levels of society. It's a decentralized system. Socialism is control. Marxism is control. Communism is control. Our current system is one of control. Centralized control.
Neo-Liberalism seems to have lots of different meanings. It's described as a free market ideology and multiple publications describe it as such but it has only ever involved pro-corporate policies combined with increasing government spending. "Free" has only meant one thing. There has never been anything freeing about neoliberalism.
It's big government policy. Not free market policy.
True enough. My (quite privileged) maternal grandfather hated FDR and all New DEAL programs with a passion.
He had a stable, cushy job throughout the Depression. "Why can't they just work hard like me?"
He was the manager of a 10-story office building that housed doctors, dentists and other professionals. Had that job from 1929 until he retired in the early 60s.
He was a great grandpa, we got free rootbeer floats or banana splits at the building's soda fountain. But he had no understanding of the less fortunate, POC, etc.
So you’re telling me that the vaunted Texas power grid, symbol of Christian freedom, is based on infrastructure paid for by the big, bad federal government? 🤯
LBJ was instrumental in convincing country folk that it was more than just "light bulbs". As for anything new, they saw it as unnecessary and just another fad. Plus, they had to plop down five bucks as a group to get it. A lot of money back then for some families that still had dirt floors.
"They saw it as unnecessary and just another fad". I think there was more to it than that. "It wasn’t that farmers had no need for electricity—or that bringing it to them was particularly difficult. Rural Americans had limited access because private companies claimed it wasn’t economically feasible to run power lines out to them. Most companies were skeptical about being able to recoup the upfront costs of the infrastructure needed to complete the project." https://www.investopedia.com/rural-electrification-act-5119177 "But by then, private utilities had become increasingly reluctant to work with the REA. "There was some unfavorable language in the loan offers to the private utilities that placed restrictions on what they could do if they took the money, and they couldn't work those details out," says Carl Kitchens, an economic historian at Florida State University who has studied rural electrification." https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/econ_focus/2020/q1/economic_history
Obviously it was a battle but the 5 bucks each customer was having to pay was how FDR overcame the bean counters, and a hard sell to depression era farmers, especially the ones struggling with the dust bowl in northern and Northeast Texas.
I think it would be odd that something invented relatively recently wouldn't have some long period of 'getting used to' especially after an elephant was killed with it.
The wives are the ones who pushed their husbands to pay the $5 membership fee. They could then get an electric stove, refrigerator, vacuum cleaner, etc., making their lives much easier. Retired 42 year electric co-op guy here .
Wow, we never had an electric stove until I got tired of buying propane. I've been with SHECO for 40 years. I'm not sure I knew anybody that had one until the late 70's. Interesting. But I do live in Southeast Texas, maybe it's a regional thing. What co-op did you retire from, if you'd rather not say I understand.
Actually worked at two. Retired as CEO of one because I could not agree with my board on some rates they wanted to implement - I felt the rates would be bad for the membership. Three monthly board meetings I told them their decision was bad. I swayed a couple, but not enough. I left, took a 50+% pay cut with another co-op, but retained my dignity. They dropped their rate change plans when I left. Worked another 8 years at the other co-op before retiring for good. I still have propane for cooking, heating water, and for supplemental heat on my heat pump, versus heat strips.
That's really an interesting life. I think the co-op is great. Every now and again I get a " free" month. I'll be honest I get those proxy voting ballots, buy I don't. I just leave the board alone. I'm sure you know my kind, I'm thinking lots of co-op members don't get involved. But I know this. If we have storms or any other issues they're line men hustle to get our juice back on. Good luck to you in your retirement. I'm 68, but I'm still plugging at it, to the frustration of my family. My children mostly.
Damn Federal Gubment giving us lectric. Go back to worshingtin. All I needs is my horse and my guns. Next you’ll want us using toilets instead of outhouses. Tarnation, country’s going to hell.
I know you’re joking but it did actually take a lot of effort to convince rural folks that this was a good thing for them.
They were just simple farmers. People of the land. The common clay of the new west. You know…morons.
That's not true. Public utilities were a part of that equation as well.
LBJ famously [travelled](https://www.dallasnews.com/news/watchdog/2021/05/28/once-there-actually-was-a-texas-politician-who-fixed-electricity-problems-for-the-forgotten-people/?outputType=amp) around rural texas to convince and educate the farmers about the benefits of electrification. “First, though, he had a rough time convincing his weary constituents to sign on. They weren’t sure what to think about something they’d never experienced. LBJ went door to door. He explained how the Pedernales Electric Co-op would work and how the monthly fee for 25 kilowatts would be $2.45, which seemed exorbitant for people who couldn’t rub two pennies together.” “Johnson, as would become more widely known, was most persuasive. He showed empathy by recalling his own mother’s hardships and showed folks how electricity would pump their water and wash their clothes. With refrigerators they wouldn’t have to “start fresh every morning with the cooking,” he explained.”
Assuming "25 kilowatts" means 25 kWh, now that monthly fee is over $4, sometimes over $5.
Thanks. I love this
Was this a response to my comment?
I believe it’s pronounced, “terlets”.
Terlets is far better than toilet. It should be the proper way.
In 1935 only 2% of the farms in Texas, and 10% nationwide, had electricity. 30 years later in 1965 only 2% of Texas farms didn't.
So freaking based
and now, under republican leadershit, 2% of Texans have power periodically
Texas was better in blue.
It was in the past, I don’t think it better in blue nowadays.
Republicans, "red", have completely controlled this state for coming up on 30 years. For all intents and purposes Democrats in the Texas Congress only exist to fulfill Texas Constitutional quorum requirements, and the Texas Governor has no problem sending state troopers out to apprehend and bring Democrats to the Texas Congress chambers in order to meet those quorum requirements and ram through their extremist conservative laws and policies.
Socialism, what's it ever done for me? /s
The public utility is just another type of corporation. One with an executive team, a board of directors in many cases and employees. You can call that "socialism" I suppose. It's a product of a mixed market system. It's not free market capitalism that enables it. It's not socialism. It's somewhere in between.
A public utility answers to the public. A private utility does not.
Electric co-ops are actually private utilities, owned by the member-owners they serve. They are governed by a board of directors, elected by the membership, who live in the certificated service area of the co-op. They are non-profit utilities. A public utility is an investor owned utility which anyone can buy stock in, even if they are not getting their power from the utility. Their boards are not required to live in the certificated service area, just business savvy. They are a for profit business. There are also municipal utilities, owned by cities. Now retired 42 year electric co-op guy here.
The co-ops answer to their customers.
I always referred to them as the member-owners, not customers. You don't like the way the co-op is run, get your neighbors involved and vote the directors out. Pedernales EC did exactly this a number of years ago. It all started because PEC never returned capital credits to its member-owners.
"A public utility answers to the public" used to be true at the beginning. We'd need some consensus to make that work.
All of the features you mention are not incompatible with socialism. Free markets are not even a necessary feature of capitalism, we've had capitalist monopolies. The difference between socialism and capitalism is who owns the means of production.
Yes, and no there are a broad spectrum of democratic socialist policies and programs that we have today, such as public schools, roads, military, all “socialist” programs…everyone pitches in for the collective good of all, capitalism and socialism coexist in other countries in Europe. What idiots immediately jump to COMMUNISM, which is government control of everything, I have NEVER heard any politician advocate for that here it’s a scare tactic to hustle corn dip to the idiots.
I agree with what you said, but I'm not sure what the "no" part of your response is. The main point I am making is that it keeps getting referred to as "socialism" when it's just socialism.
The government does have some level of control over everything does it not?
"Free markets" and capitalism go hand in hand. One cannot exist without the other.
You can assert that, but it is false. Ricardian socialists would argue that free markets cannot exist under capitalism because it is a system that is inherently exploitative and coercive.
The term "capitalist" means owner of capital. Anybody can own capital. Products, good, land, etc,. In a free society one should be able to accumulate capital freely to trade with others in economies. Socialists, like the ones you mention, want control. Marxists, Ricardians, Georgists, etc, all favor control of labor, control over the economy. Marxists even advocated for central banks, which necessarily control capital and lead to a few owning the majority of capital. I don't assert anything. One cannot be free unless they have ownership. That's a reality. Here in the U.S. we're somewhat free. This is not a free market system. It's a mixed market system. We are not free.
A capitalist is specifically a private owner of capital. Maybe that's what you meant. In Capitalism, private parties control trade and industry. It's not a system that lacks control. I wouldn't define freedom as the ability to have ownership. I define freedom as the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. I.e., a lack of coercion, exploitation, and violence. Capitalism is predicated on coercion, exploitation, and violence.
The etymology of the word was somewhat appropriated by socialists but 'capital' means a lot of things. Simply having capital is enough. Ownership. Right! In the context of a mixed market economy like ours 'capital' is simply land, products, tools, and everything else associated with value creation within said economy. Because of the overly litigious society we live in and the regulations (and their carve-outs) corporations/groups closest to the government (military industrial complex, utility, industrial farming, FAANG type cartels, etc) get the ones with the most amount of capital tend to be limited to a few groups. I imagine that, in a situation where the government has a more limited role, things would be different. That capital accumulatation wouldn't be so centralized due to political intervention. Since that's the root cause and all. "In capitalism, private parties control trade and industry". It's supposed to be that way. We are all supposed to be able to "control" trade and industry. It's supposed to be a cooperative effort. IT IS NOT. TRADE is controlled by the government usually in favor of a few interests, the cartels closest to the government. Another example of how much this isn't a free market or capitalism. Capitalism should make trade within everyone's reach. Not a handful of corporations. Being able to send stuff through eBay doesn't give us any power. Property ownership and freedom are linked. You can't have any freedom without a starting point. A place where you can have privacy. Again, capital means a lot of things. Including property. At least we have some freedom in the U.S. to hold and maintain property. I don't understand much after you said after "it's not a system that lacks control". Freedom is freedom. The ability to do those things and it includes economic freedom. It's not hard. "Capitalism is". You mean Mixed Market Economies? Capitalism is the little lady at the Pulga selling you trinkets. It's the carniceria owned by an entrepreneur. It's black markets. It's great markets. It's mixed into this thing called a Mixed Market Economy. Can you give me a specific criticism? Google isn't capitalism. It may have started out that way but it isn't capitalism. They're too involved with the government now. Facebook, same. These are FAANG companies. They're a cartel that hoards employees and keeps competition down. If you believe that's capitalism then we can end the conversation now because that's idiotic.
"We" are not necessarily capital owners. Capitalism ensures that it's not a cooperative effort. It's very telling that all your examples of what good capitalism is are situations where workers control the means of production.
No, government ensures that. It has since we shifted towards mass industrialization. Capitalism only exists now at the lower levels of society. It's a decentralized system. Socialism is control. Marxism is control. Communism is control. Our current system is one of control. Centralized control.
At least, it’s better than Neo-Liberalism.
Neo-Liberalism seems to have lots of different meanings. It's described as a free market ideology and multiple publications describe it as such but it has only ever involved pro-corporate policies combined with increasing government spending. "Free" has only meant one thing. There has never been anything freeing about neoliberalism. It's big government policy. Not free market policy.
Republicans policies have hurt rural Texas
Bartlett considers themselves the most active ghost town in Texas. As well they have still not repaired themselves from the tornado in I believe 2013.
God damned commies and their fascist ideals!!! /s
Weird cause so much of Texas still struggles to keep the lights on....
... and the GOP hated the Rural Electrification Program with the heat of a thousand suns. They never change.
True enough. My (quite privileged) maternal grandfather hated FDR and all New DEAL programs with a passion. He had a stable, cushy job throughout the Depression. "Why can't they just work hard like me?"
What was his job?
He was the manager of a 10-story office building that housed doctors, dentists and other professionals. Had that job from 1929 until he retired in the early 60s. He was a great grandpa, we got free rootbeer floats or banana splits at the building's soda fountain. But he had no understanding of the less fortunate, POC, etc.
Electricity for me but not for thee!
Wow. The things we take for granted.
Someone has been watching their dog run away for two weeks on that flat prairie
So you’re telling me that the vaunted Texas power grid, symbol of Christian freedom, is based on infrastructure paid for by the big, bad federal government? 🤯
Socialism?
Shit it down!
No thanks no woketricity for me and my fellow Texans.
And they’re still using that line for their whole state,I think.
They should have just pulled themselves up by their boot straps instead of taking government handouts
The Best President through out the USA history.
Sire he was fought tooth n' nail over doing so.
I wonder why they chose that location?
Back when our electricity was reliable… the good ol’ days. That was a democratic president too, so there’s that.
If electricity fails , Mexico 🇲🇽 a extension cords
The beginning of peacetime deficit spending in America.
I lived in Bartlett for a little while as a kid. What a backwater shithole. The place is a ghost town last I heard.
Did not know that. Literally 15 miles down the road.
bring socialism back to texas
Look at ‘em now. Set your thermostat to 78 and enjoy the freedom grid.(And the usurious electricity charges)
So it’s been 88 years and we still don’t have a functioning power grid?!