So what you're saying is we need more regulations to cover these kinds of cases? Aren't you "regulations" people usually against regulations? Like, normally wouldn't I be arguing against someone screaming about how the free market can take care of these things and that the free market knows better than the government?
Or, once again, is it just an amazing coincidence that people have suddenly completely flipped their stance because it happened in California?
> So what you're saying is we need more regulations to cover these kinds of cases?
Please quote back to me where in my post I say "more regulation".
> Aren't you "regulations" people usually against regulations?
??? Who is the "you" that is being referenced?
Perhaps you are projecting onto me positions that I have not stated and may not actually hold. I have not stated whether more free market is good/better or bad/worse, or whether more regulations would be better or worse.
I'm simply pointing out that, in addition to PG&E, there may be other parties that may share responsibility in the chain of events that led to the situation at hand.
PG&E operates in a regulatory context: is it worth examining if that context contributed to the current situation that California is in? Are the regulations a problem? Or how they are interpreted or applied? Are more needed, or less? Perhaps they need to be streamlined (proscriptive versus descriptive)? I have no answers to these questions.
Or, once again, is it just an amazing coincidence that people have suddenly completely flipped their stance because it happened in California?