Government didn't make a monopoly. Government is regulating a natural monopoly in an attempt to protect the citizenry.

I work for the largest gas distribution company in our state and I agree completely. Like any utility (electric, water, sewer, cable, telephone) there is almost never a business case for a second company to invest in duplicate infrastructure. Our state semi-deregulated gas distribution by requiring local distribution companies to provide transportation services to any customer who requests it. This means that you can go find your own source of natural gas and pay us for the use of our pipes. This isn't a consumer-friendly process, but for industrial and larger commercial customers, they can save money and not be stuck with whatever the regulator says our rate is.

Generally gas distribution companies are allowed a baseline "lost and accounted for" amount of gas that is built into their rates. Anything above that either requires serious documentation/explanation or is taken out of the company profit. There is incentive to get to that baseline number but extremely diminishing returns after that. As you say, that could change if other costs were factored into the equation.

Actually, the rates are set to ensure a utility does not exceed an allowable return. The utility tries to get as much investment included in that calculation, so that these costs are included in the rate base. However, the PUC/PSC does not guarantee any minimum rate of return. My employer approached their allowed 9.9% return last year, for the first time in at least 8 years.

While there are exceptions, this generally is not true. The general rule for regulatory accounting in this space is that capitalized costs can be recovered but O&M (expenses) cannot be. There are some allowances for liabilities like bad debt.

In our state, the cost of the gas is a pass through - no mark up and (eventually) no loss, although it isn't uncommon to be over or under by millions from year to year. The return is built into the flat customer charge.

Then you should get out some. They certainly are a loud percentage but secular homeschoolers are a rapidly increasing group.

Because all homeschoolers are religious nuts?

I've made perfectly clear that I don't agree and that further discussion of this point is useless. We can't talk about trees when you insist that oaks have teeth and walk around at night. I told you days ago to feel free to believe what you want. You can no longer claim ignorance. But who cares?

And as long as you are free to define capitalism as any system that has been successful, I guess you're right. But in the real world, capitalism sucks at being kind to the poor so it gets tempered with some socialist pieces to help. Or a lot of socialist pieces, like your example of Denmark.

Yet another moving target. Absolutely, an individual living in a capitalist society can follow typical Christian duties. That is not the same as Jesus being a capitalist.

This section is a great example at just what a mammoth waste of time this has been. You are an idiot and I'm done hoping that you have some capability for rational discourse.

If the nits that you wish to pick are that you said he WOULD embrace capitalism rather than he IS a capitalist, then you're arguing semantics that don't exist. This whole discussion has become pointless.

No, I didn't. This is a lie. Or perhaps I'm assuming too much and you are simply failing at logical reasoning. You seem to think that my argument against your position is an explicit advancement of what you see as your negative position. Therefore, if I'm arguing against your claim that Jesus would embrace capitalism, I'm obviously saying that Jesus was a communist or at least made clear his support for some other economic system. This is a fallacy.

Ahh, and here we are again. If I say I don't believe in the Christian God nor their religious dogma, does that automatically make me an atheist? Does it make me a Muslim? Can you use my statement to show I support any particular religion? Of course not. I claimed that Jesus's words, as reflected in the Christian Bible, do not show him as a capitalist. Simple. The first half of your latest post is wasted; you're trying to build a strawman.

Because the only way to know which economic system Jesus would be more likely to support is if he explicitly expounded upon the pros and cons of the various options? And if that is your position, how the hell did you decide that he would embrace capitalism? In your simplistic view, capitalism is good and communism is bad; Jesus was a good guy; therefore, Jesus would embrace capitalism and shun communism. End of story.

So yeah.. What Would Jesus Do? Impose communist bullshit and make half the world starve... or embrace capitalism.. You're claiming those aren't your words? Or, do you mean that I challenged your comment so that makes me responsible for the conversation? Interesting view either way.

Your responses made obvious that a letter addressed to you, from Jesus, clearly laying out his objections to capitalism, would have been waved away as insufficient. Seriously, I wasted very little time on that part of the conversation because it was clear you had no interest in reasonable discussion.

Again, your simplistic black and white outlook makes discussion impossible. I never said that Denmark is A SOCIALIST NATION. As I've said in previous posts, there are no pure capitalist nor socialist nations - they don't exist. Every real world economy is a mix. You agree that Denmark is as close to the EVIL SOCIALISM end of the scale as any country today, yet hold them up as a capitalist success.

You argue that capitalism is better than socialism. Your example for capitalism is, perhaps, the most socialized nation in the world today. Your position is not supported by your example. In fact, it is directly undermined. Other, more capitalist, nations do a poorer job of providing safety nets. They produce lower standards of living while requiring their citizens to work more hours. Their citizens score lower on surveys of happiness and health. But none of that counts to you because as long as there is a touch of capitalism in the system, it still counts as capitalism. This logical disconnect makes discussion impossible.

Anything that doesn't fit your worldview is either ignored or reinterpreted appropriately. I feel like I'm talking to a cult member.

I get your point, but none of that requires the SCADA system to be connected to the Internet. It does require a dedicated network for SCADA completely separate from your LAN/WAN but you can do all of that with technology and not touch the Internet.

A natural gas company should at least monitor pressure at critical locations via a SCADA system.

You spent several posts trying to defend your assumed support of Jesus for capitalism. And now you suddenly claim you never said he was a capitalist? Technically, no you didn't say he was a capitalist. You said he would embrace capitalism instead of communist bullshit. I posted some quotes and said he doesn't sound like much of a capitalist. You disagreed. Now you're apparently backing away from that. That's fine.

Perhaps that is what you wish you said or meant to say. However, it is simple to look at the thread above and see that you actually said: What Would Jesus Do? Impose communist bullshit and make half the world starve... or embrace capitalism... I didn't make any claims to Jesus's support for any economic system, that was you, remember?

I'm not "hung up" on Jesus and the Bible. You took the conversation there and I disagreed with your spurious claim.

I didn't claim he was a capitalist or communist, only that your original claim was bullshit. If you want to believe that Jesus would be the Wolf of Wall Street rather than Mother Teresa, feel free. Just realize that you have no actual support for the idea.

Wow. Denmark is your example of a more capitalist society? Denmark has the highest total tax pressure in the world. It has the smallest private sector in Europe and supports one of the biggest public sectors. It is generally considered one of the most socialist nations today and the antithesis of what capitalists want in their world. Denmark’s people also constantly rank among the happiest in the world and they work far less hours than Americans, while enjoying excellent infrastructure, health care, and other measures of quality of life.

You remind me of too many Christians who give a bad name to that Jesus guy. He apparently made some pretty clear statements but you're sure he didn't really mean them. Between me and you, I'm okay with you not caring what Jesus said, or not believing that the Bible accurately reflects it, or any other host of arguments. But to claim that he didn't mean what he said is a pretty weak one.

Again, your simplistic black or white view makes the conversation difficult. I never said he endorsed communism. I said he wasn't a capitalist. There is a huge range of options between those two. But you've assumed that someone opposing unbridled capitalism must be a communist.

I enjoy a good conversation but posts like yours tend to irritate me. I say things that I normally wouldn't or come off ruder than I probably should have. The views you've shared on this thread are terribly simplistic and unrealistic. Posting stuff like

capitalism has created more wealth for the poor and meek than any other economic system. While millions starved under Communism, the more capitalist grew rich and developed social safety nets for the poor...What Would Jesus Do? Impose communist bullshit and make half the world starve... or embrace capitalism.

indicates that you have a very shallow understanding of economics, history, and religion. You've done nothing thus far to disabuse me of that notion. Perhaps they don't really represent your thoughts, but what you've posted really leaves little room for discussion. Capitalism does not exist in the real world. Neither does communism. Capitalism is a brutal system that results in most of the wealth concentrated at the top, some middle class trying to grab their piece of the pie, and a lot of really poor people at the bottom. Communist systems theoretically eliminate this huge disparity but have little incentive for growth and are inherently unworkable because they require people in charge who will take advantage. What you have in the real world is a mix of these and other economic systems in various quantities. More capitalistic societies have done poorer at providing safety nets for those that the capitalists build their wealth upon. Less capitalistic societies have done poorer at harnessing human ingenuity and sustaining growth.

You equate selling all of your possessions, giving the money to the poor, and giving up your life to follow Jesus with selling some stuff and giving a pittance to charity? The rest of your retorts are equally ridicules and ill conceived.

Your fascination with capitalism vs communism and the good/evil nature of these theoretical economic systems is juvenile. I never suggested that either system is good or bad. I merely pointed out the error of your WWJD comment.

The fact that you refer to a contraceptive as a recreational drug speaks volumes. Whether you're trolling or willfully ignorant, I've wasted enough time on this thread.

They do not want their health insurance plan to cover contraceptives. The pill is a contraceptive. Despite many other common usage by doctors, that still is the only on-label use for it. None of the other common usages of the pill will be covered if the religious groups are successful. It doesn't matter the reason the doctor wants to prescribe it; it will not be covered. Why do you pretend otherwise?