Rural Electrification Act

[bobfuller30004]

My 65 year old Father uses the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 as an example of why we need a Federal Government that gets involved in state and local issues. He argues that without this act the electric companies would only have provided the electrical infrastructure and electricity to cities and the wealthy, because that is where the money (the profit) is at. How would Dr. Paul respond to this?

[Iowa4Paul]

the same way he responds to everything else...

However I think would be low on his priorities.

[colecrowe]

My almost 91 year old Grandpa, a WWII vet and supporter of Ron Paul (even though he's always been an FDR-Democrat (he supports Paul because he is honest and real and not bought, besides being against the war), brings up the same thing, plus the railroad land grants plan, homestead act, TVA, CVP, CCC, phone lines, etc., to argue that the gov't and only the gov't can do certain things, and that the gov't doing things can be very good. He says, "Why hasn't the gov't done anything big and great like that for 60 plus years?" He brings this up when I argue against Nationalized Healthcare or Social Security. He thinks SS was the greatest plan in the history of the world.

[Liberté]

My 65 year old Father uses the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 as an example of why we need a Federal Government that gets involved in state and local issues. He argues that without this act the electric companies would only have provided the electrical infrastructure and electricity to cities and the wealthy, because that is where the money (the profit) is at. How would Dr. Paul respond to this?

The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 is a rare example of a positive Federal Interventionist policy; everyone gets it right once in awhile. Ron Paul does support some aspects of the Federal Government; you can view his issue platform on his website.

[BreakYourChains]

My 65 year old Father uses the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 as an example of why we need a Federal Government that gets involved in state and local issues. He argues that without this act the electric companies would only have provided the electrical infrastructure and electricity to cities and the wealthy, because that is where the money (the profit) is at. How would Dr. Paul respond to this?

Well, since you are a new poster and are seeking information, I will at least give you my thoughts. I cannot speak for Dr. Paul, but I can guess he would not approve of this act. And, I would also question whether you father had actually read the act, since he would have been 7 years old when it passed, or was it something taught to him by his parents? This question would really involve a lot of in-depth historical study to properly answer, as I was not alive at the time, and am not aware of this particular act.

I can only hazard a guess that your father is a Democrat, because he, like all of our older generation, were taught to worship FDR because of the New Deal. Well, when one digs into the New Deal, and the causes of the horrible conditions of the time, one opens another can of worms. Suffice it to say, the stock market crash of 29 ruined the economy and millions were in trouble. This was a real depression, nothing like we have ever seen in our lifetimes. After several years of this, I would suppose the people would be grateful to have a job, and believe the government was supposed to fix everything, so they were grateful for the New Deal. It is understandable how they would feel this way.

This apparent act had something to do with the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933. Again, since I have not had time to study this, I cannot say. I only know that the same powers that own the Federal Reserve Bank today, were relatives of the people who owned it then, and it has been suggested that the stock market was manipulated to fall by the tightening of credit from the Fed at that time. So, one could easily start to figure this out by digging really deeply and verifying facts and reading these bills.

I would imagine that before this time, the rural parts of the country had electricity, or were working on getting it, just like the larger areas did. With the collapse of the economy, of course there would not have been money necessary to run the infrastructure to the rural areas. Your father is right in his thinking on this. But, without the manipulation of the market, perhaps the collapse would not have happened. The free market would have produced the electricity to the rural areas in due time, as the people would have found a way to do it.

But, that did not happen, because of the depression. So, who knows? Perhaps this was a way to start to get the states and local governments beholden to the federal government, and in debt? I do not know, but I do know if you dig deep, you will find things out about FDR that your father will not want to know. You do not have to tell him what you learn, you only have to find out the truth of the history of the time. I am only thinking off of the top of my head here, so you need to research this for yourself. Good luck, and welcome to the forum.

[sirachman]

My almost 91 year old Grandpa, a WWII vet and supporter of Ron Paul (even though he's always been an FDR-Democrat (he supports Paul because he is honest and real and not bought, besides being against the war), brings up the same thing, plus the railroad land grants plan, homestead act, TVA, CVP, CCC, phone lines, etc., to argue that the gov't and only the gov't can do certain things, and that the gov't doing things can be very good. He says, "Why hasn't the gov't done anything big and great like that for 60 plus years?" He brings this up when I argue against Nationalized Healthcare or Social Security. He thinks SS was the greatest plan in the history of the world.

Funny how Social Security was originally planned to be a "take it if you need it" thing to fall back on if you ran into trouble, and not the "everyone takes it because they are too retarded to save any money" fund. Either was its completely stupid and needs to be completely thrown out along with 99 percent of the other govt programs.

[Meiun]

I would have opposed it.

There is no privilege in the constitution for electricity. You do, however, have a RIGHT to do on your property as you see fit.

A more appropriate Act would have been to fund either an information campaign or refund money to rural americans to buy alternative energy producing materials relative to the time.

This certainly would have averted the mess we're in today with everyone being "plugged in" to the grid.

Federal and State government should always respect Property Rights, and NEVER take away money that an individual has earned... If the IRS and FED had not been around this would never have become an issue.

[Thurston Howell III]

REA is merely a farm subsidy. You'l be hard pressed to find a farmer who is not in favor of subsidies. Private utilities would not build distribution lines to rural areas because of the high costs. In rural areas you had about 1 customer per mile of distrubution line, while in cities the density was hundreds of customers per mile of distribution. So, government decided to loan money at 2% interest to Rural Electric Co-Operatives, non-profit Co-Ops which were owned and operated by those it served. This financing enabled affordable distribution systems to be built to serve rural areas. In the 70's govenment decided to ween them off of these low interest loans, declaring they had to start getting 30% of their financing from other sources. I suppose that ratio has changed again since then. Remember in the 70's what interest rates were? At one point, the coop I worked for was borrowing 2% government money and investing it in15% commercial paper!

Anyway you look at it, it was a subsidy. Needed? The results were good, but to assume that rural America would not have been "electrified" without government intervention would be an allusion.

[HenryKnoxFineBooks]

The Rural Electrification Admin., was started in 1936, and continued until 1994, when it had completed its mission (during the 90's, it was still "electrifing" golf courses, like Hilton Head), it was then merged into the Rural Utilities Service, where it still subsidizes rural communities, now with Broadband cable (Satellite appearently isnt good enough). Like all Federal programs, it will not DIE.

[misterbig]

Well maybe if we didn't subsidize electricity for people living in rural areas, either the people who would live there will decide to live in a more convenient area and keep total costs to society lower, or they would develop cost efficient alternatives to using electricity via traditional means.

Either outcome is beneficial.

[Molly1]

Tell your father that Nikola Tesla demonstrated wireless electricity in the 1898 World's Fair.

He lit up a neon sign which spelled out "Edison" using no wires.

The banks refused to support him because, as JP Morgan said, if there are no wires, 'where would we put the meter'?

A lot of science has been suppressed in the interests of those few who would make money off the many.

So don't tell me big govt is honest in its approach to such problems.

When Tesla died a pauper in the 40's, his notebooks were seized by the govt and kept secret to this day.

[XNavyNuke]

It could also be said that the REA favored big utility companies and stifled decentralized systems that could have led to increased innovations.

Imagine if the FedGov had passed a Rural Cable Television act back in 1980. Where would digital satellite be today? Could it have developed in a market where existing infrastructure favored the cable companies. As of 2000, satellite penetration was six times greater in rural areas than in urban areas where it had direct competetion from cable providers (who were often acting in the role of a state-authorized monolpoly.)

Something to chew on.

XNN

[FunkBuddha]

I remember hearing an argument that before the REA farmers and people living in rural communities were actually becoming self-sufficient with wind and hydroelectric power. Momma Government wouldn't like that.

Also, most of these people had lived without electricity for their whole lives. They obviously didn't "need" it. The bitch of it is that generations of Americans had to subsidize the costs of supplying electricity to someone that CHOSE to live in rural America.

[Delivered4000]

Tell your father that Nikola Tesla demonstrated wireless electricity in the 1898 World's Fair.

He lit up a neon sign which spelled out "Edison" using no wires.

The banks refused to support him because, as JP Morgan said, if there are no wires, 'where would we put the meter'?

A lot of science has been suppressed in the interests of those few who would make money off the many.

So don't tell me big govt is honest in its approach to such problems.

When Tesla died a pauper in the 40's, his notebooks were seized by the govt and kept secret to this day.
Proof of this?

[RockEnds]

I remember hearing an argument that before the REA farmers and people living in rural communities were actually becoming self-sufficient with wind and hydroelectric power. Momma Government wouldn't like that.

Also, most of these people had lived without electricity for their whole lives. They obviously didn't "need" it. The bitch of it is that generations of Americans had to subsidize the costs of supplying electricity to someone that CHOSE to live in rural America.

Well, yes. When I grew up, the windmill was still there beside the engine house. The engine house was build beside the well. There was a wood frame attached to the well. You flipped a switch, and the well pumped water on its own.

Dad said the farm got electricity when he was in high school. He graduated in 1950. I was born in 1966, and I remember when rural water came through. It was the mid to late 70's. Before rural water, we pumped our own water into the house from the pond, and we went to the well every day to pump our drinking water. Some salesman came by the house and told us how bad off we were because of all the horrible things in the ground water and how hookup was free if we got it when they ran the lines. If we stayed on our own system and changed our mind later, it would cost an arm and a leg, so we signed up.

Not everyone did. My natural dad still uses well water in the house with a reverse osmosis system for drinking. There's no rural water lines on his property.

[Delivered4000]

Actually, if this Act were never enacted, the market would have solved this problem by cheaper means (generators, alternative sources). Or it would have prevented people from living in areas where it was very expensive to lay down the wire. It is just another example of wasteful and innefficient central planning.

[RockEnds]

The Amish still don't have electricity, and don't fool yourself. They're not living by candlelight. Their houses are just as bright as the English. They have refrigerators, etc. They use propane and generators.

[Molly1]

Proof of this?

Go study Nikola Tesla.

There's a lot about him on the internet.

You'll be surprised.

He is undoubtedly the greatest genius of the 20th century (forget Einstein, he's a product of marketing).

He's one of the great geniuses of all human history.

Everything you see around you that looks 20th century was invented or made possible by the inventions of Nikola Tesla.

Every time you flip on a light switch, open your refrigerator, do your laundry, bake a cake, turn on a radio or tv, think of Nikola Tesla.


“Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night:
God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light.”

--B A Behrend, May 18, 1917.


Nikola Tesla, the "man who invented the twentieth century,"

http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/new/tesla.htm



.

[Fox McCloud]

Lemme tell you a little story....

Once upon a time, there was a small county with a sparse population...this county was so rural that it wasn't served by any of the electric companies. Then, one day, the community got together and said "Let's stick it to the electric companies!"...did they? Yes...but not through legislation--they formed the "X Country Co-op" and served much of the county with electricity...and the city cheered in their new Libertarian victory.

ok, it wasn't exactly like that, but, anyway, they didn't use government legislation (read: regulation) to get what they wanted...nor did they even use local (state, county, or city) funds to set up their business...it was a co-op in every sense--owned and operated by the people.

Go figure on why that act was needed...

Also, when the "authorities" were declaring Einstein the smartest person of all time, he denied it....they asked him who was the smartest man all time...to which he replied "Nikola Tesla...Nikola Tesla".

Thank goodness for him, or we'd be using ultra-dangerous DC voltages, that could only transverse a short distance.

[CUnknown]

I would hope that Ron Paul would see maintaining the infastructure as one of the important and legitimate purposes of the federal government. Dr. Paul wants to reduce the role of government very sharply, but some things would still fall under the government's proper role, I think.

At any rate, it's very hard to argue that the government maintaining the roads, power lines, phone lines, bridges, etc. as something that's bad for the country. Our bridges are collapsing because the government hasn't been carrying out its responsibilities very well -- but that only means that it should work harder at these responsibilities, not less hard.

I am all for reducing the size and scope of government, but let's leave at least some of its functions intact.