Los Angeles thinks we care

#27
#27
Cash Vallin said:
yeah, she's so unconcerned about it that she felt the need to come out against it more than a year in advance.

this isn't an immigration issue. this is an economic issue for arizona. if boycotts do happen, they'll be plenty concerned. what's the first step to boycotts happening? People asking for them.
Click to expand...

Baseball isn't going to move the all star game, shut up.
 
#28
#28
tvolsfan said:
If he's going to just make random points that can't be connected, it's not fair to use logic in your argument...
Click to expand...
right, my arguments are just random, even though the governor of the state for crying out loud is concerned over boycotts. i guess you know more than she does.
 
Last edited:
#30
#30
Cash Vallin said:
right, might arguments are just random, even though the governor of the state for crying out loud is concerned over boycotts. i guess you know more than she does.
Click to expand...
I guess it's nicer than her saying, "Your boycotts won't hurt us nearly as bad as harboring non tax paying citizens for years."
 
#31
#31
Cash Vallin said:
right, might arguments are just random, even though the governor of the state for crying out loud is concerned over boycotts. i guess you know more than she does.
Click to expand...

Hiring an actor that has no clue about economics is partly what got California in the mess it's in. That and not policing it's borders.
 
#33
#33
tvolsfan said:
Baseball isn't going to move the all star game, shut up.
Click to expand...
yet, the governor felt the need to release a statement about it. you're probably right. the all star game isn't going anywhere. but to say the people of arizona aren't concerned about potential boycotts is just foolish. if they weren't concerned, the governor wouldn't have come out against them.
 
#35
#35
Cash Vallin said:
yet, the governor felt the need to release a statement about it. you're probably right. the all star game isn't going anywhere. but to say the people of arizona aren't concerned about potential boycotts is just foolish. if they weren't concerned, the governor wouldn't have come out against them.
Click to expand...
How do you know that for sure? Either way, it doesn't make sense to try to avoid a boycott by letting a serious financial drain continue.
 
#37
#37
g8terh8ter_eric said:
Hiring an actor that has no clue about economics is partly what got California in the mess it's in. That and not policing it's borders.
Click to expand...
this isn't about california. it's about arizona. if they weren't concerned, the governor wouldn't be trying so hard to stop them. if it wasn't going to hurt them, she wouldn't waste her time. why would she?
 
#38
#38
Cash Vallin said:
this isn't about california. it's about arizona. if they weren't concerned, the governor wouldn't be trying so hard to stop them. if it wasn't going to hurt them, she wouldn't waste her time. why would she?
Click to expand...
I'm sure it was very time consuming.
 
#39
#39
Cash Vallin said:
this isn't about california. it's about arizona. if they weren't concerned, the governor wouldn't be trying so hard to stop them. if it wasn't going to hurt them, she wouldn't waste her time. why would she?
Click to expand...

All she's doing is trying to help them from making a VERY dumb mistake. Arizona will be fine without the business of LA.
 
#40
#40
g8terh8ter_eric said:
Because someone will always pay for it. That's the concept you seem to not be getting here.
Click to expand...
not if they don't need the electricity due to having enough of their own.

if all these people were clamoring for arizona's electricity, they could charge what they want without the California discount.

My friend, that's just not happening.
 
#41
#41
Cash Vallin said:
not if they don't need the electricity due to having enough of their own.

if all these people were clamoring for arizona's electricity, they could charge what they want without the California discount.

My friend, that's just not happening.
Click to expand...

Your obviously not getting the simple concept of supply and demand here. Move on.
 
#42
#42
tvolsfan said:
How do you know that for sure? Either way, it doesn't make sense to try to avoid a boycott by letting a serious financial drain continue.
Click to expand...
how do i know what for sure??? No way on earth the people of arizona want other people to boycott them.

would you want the threat of boycott on the UT football program? of course you wouldn't. it wouldn't make you worry a little?

and avoiding the boycott because of immigration isn't the point i'm trying to make. that's another issue. I'm just saying the threat of boycotts in general (regardless of the issue) can not and does not sit well with those in charge.
 
Last edited:
#44
#44
g8terh8ter_eric said:
All she's doing is trying to help them from making a VERY dumb mistake. Arizona will be fine without the business of LA.
Click to expand...
and all the other calls of boycotts? there's no way they don't want to maximize their business potential. boycotts won't allow for that max to happen.
 
#46
#46
The Bureau of Reclamation reports that the energy generated is allocated as follows:[32]
Area Percentage
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 28.5393%
State of Nevada 23.3706%
State of Arizona 18.9527%
Los Angeles, California 15.4229%
Southern California Edison Company 5.5377%
Boulder City, Nevada 1.7672%
Glendale, California 1.5874%
Pasadena, California 1.3629%
Anaheim, California 1.1487%
Riverside, California 0.8615%
Vernon, California 0.6185%
Burbank, California 0.5876%
Azusa, California 0.1104%
Colton, California 0.0884%
Banning, California 0.0442%


all that from the hoover dam. they'd have to replace about 57 percent of its usage if they didn't sell to California. Maybe they're buyers out there, I don't know. But that's a lot of money to replace on the hope that demand will be just as high as it is in California than from other states.
 
Last edited:
#47
#47
Cash Vallin said:
you're obviously not getting supply and demand doesn't work if the demand isn't there. lots of supply with little demand= LOWER prices. hence not as much money.
Click to expand...

Electricity is like any other utility, when there is a great demand for it, it is at a lower price, because more people are buying it. When there is a lower demand and the energy retailers aren't making the production to profit ratio they want, they mark it up to do just that, make their profit. There is a town in North Carolina that urged their town to use less water in the face of a drought. After the drought, they still urged the town to use less but yet the town had to pay a higher rate, 80% if I am not mistaken, because they weren't producing as much water and making enough profit, but yet enjoyed not having to make the effort to produce the water it used to produce before the drought.
 
#48
#48
g8terh8ter_eric said:
Electricity is like any other utility, when there is a great demand for it, it is at a lower price, because more people are buying it. When there is a lower demand and the energy retailers aren't making the production to profit ratio they want, they mark it up to do just that, make their profit. There is a town in North Carolina that urged their town to use less water in the face of a drought. After the drought, they still urged the town to use less but yet the town had to pay a higher rate, 80% if I am not mistaken, because they weren't producing as much water and making enough profit, but yet enjoyed not having to make the effort to produce the water it used to produce before the drought.
Click to expand...
that's fine. arizona would have that option with it's electric customers they already have. But to think they could go into a new area (if they got rid of california customers) without lowering their rate to a lower level that already exists in the area they're trying to infiltrate, is crazy.

maybe it will be a better rate?? I don't know. But to say Arizona will be just as well off since they supply a lot of power, isn't necessarily true since those new areas already have their own power. If they weren't happy with the power they have, wouldn't they already be bugging Arizona for some of the juice.

I just haven't heard of any of that happening.

And if they did do what you said and raised the rate. That would effect the Arizona citizens more. Again, don't tell me a boycott of Arizona is good for the state. There's no way it is.
 
#49
#49
Cash Vallin said:
that's fine. arizona would have that option with it's electric customers they already have. But to think they could go into a new area (if they got rid of california customers) without lowering their rate to a lower level that already exists in the area they're trying to infiltrate, is crazy.

maybe it will be a better rate?? I don't know. But to say Arizona will be just as well off since they supply a lot of power, isn't necessarily true since those new areas already have their own power. If they weren't happy with the power they have, wouldn't they already be bugging Arizona for some of the juice.

I just haven't heard of any of that happening.

And if they did do what you said and raised the rate. That would effect the Arizona citizens more. Again, don't tell me a boycott of Arizona is good for the state. There's no way it is.
Click to expand...

I can tell reading isn't your strong suit. Where are you getting that all of California is boycotting Arizona? So far it is LA, San Diego, and Hollywood, and I'm sure the first time they have a blackout from not getting electricity the boycott would be lifted.
 
#50
#50
timmy said:
I can tell reading isn't your strong suit. Where are you getting that all of California is boycotting Arizona? So far it is LA, San Diego, and Hollywood, and I'm sure the first time they have a blackout from not getting electricity the boycott would be lifted.
Click to expand...
and i can tell you haven't read this whole forum........ the people on here were talking about if arizona didn't provide electricity to California, not just LA. Next time, please read this forum before making yourself look dumb.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top