Enough BP and other shenanigans... Onto the Post Office.
-
I'm just worried that we have people change and they can't through no fault of their own. Right now I have 2 choices for TV and 2 for Internet. I am lucky. Problem is, one of those choices is inferior in pretty much every catagory and they refuse to upgrade their systems because there isn't enough demand. Everyone I know complains because if the system was upgraded, they would switch, but since the company refuses to, they won't. catch 22. A private company is too scared of not making a profit to try and go into a market. That's fine and dandy for optional things, but when you can lose your house to a bunch of jerks over a bill that you could not get because they refuse to give you service? (and I disagree with this scenario on so many levels, but it is happening already)
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
I believe the essential problem is the fact that you live in the middle of nowhere. The market is small, therefore they really do believe that it is not worth expanding their horizons because, like you said, the demand is small. So I don't know what to say, except that I can understand it. However, this doesn't mean that each market demand would be the same. Mail is still vital to our economy, as you and Ian have said. This is why I do believe that if the market opened up to mail, as opposed to having it run by the central government out in DC for a nation of 300 million people, it would last longer and thrive, and honestly I believe that a couple new companies would try to get into the mail business and compete with UPS and FedEx.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
I believe the essential problem is the fact that you live in the middle of nowhere. The market is small, therefore they really do believe that it is not worth expanding their horizons because, like you said, the demand is small. So I don't know what to say, except that I can understand it. However, this doesn't mean that each market demand would be the same. Mail is still vital to our economy, as you and Ian have said. This is why I do believe that if the market opened up to mail, as opposed to having it run by the central government out in DC for a nation of 300 million people, it would last longer and thrive, and honestly I believe that a couple new companies would try to get into the mail business and compete with UPS and FedEx.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.50K population in "the middle of no where." Now imagine the choice of people in Idaho. DHS re-imagined their dying company and is now a player against UPS and the USPS. I know other companies could show, but I don't have faith that prices would go down. :(
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
50K population in "the middle of no where." Now imagine the choice of people in Idaho. DHS re-imagined their dying company and is now a player against UPS and the USPS. I know other companies could show, but I don't have faith that prices would go down. :(
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
I was getting mixed up... the way I understood it you were 25 miles from somewhere, but that was in a convo with Ian. Sorry about that.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
I know other companies could show, but I don't have faith that prices would go down.
I know. But think about it, we are a strong economy for a reason. We are the number 6 economy in the world, according to a report shown on Stossel's show last Thursday. Honestly I think a lot of the pricing right now has to do with the constant war in Afghanistan as well, but that's speculation.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
I was getting mixed up... the way I understood it you were 25 miles from somewhere, but that was in a convo with Ian. Sorry about that.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
I know other companies could show, but I don't have faith that prices would go down.
I know. But think about it, we are a strong economy for a reason. We are the number 6 economy in the world, according to a report shown on Stossel's show last Thursday. Honestly I think a lot of the pricing right now has to do with the constant war in Afghanistan as well, but that's speculation.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.no, Ian's in NY City proper, I am in a small town in the middle of America. And this is still 50K. If I was closer to the university here I could use a T1 connection and I was used to having a T3 (talk about being a low ping Mother Effer in Team Fortress)
josda1000 wrote:
I know. But think about it, we are a strong economy for a reason. We are the number 6 economy in the world, according to a report shown on Stossel's show last Thursday.
That doesn't change the fact that unless you are Walmart, you can do better just calling your competitor up and making a deal or just setting your prices to be the same and letting the loss due to competition be made up for by the margins of what you do get.
josda1000 wrote:
Honestly I think a lot of the pricing right now has to do with the constant war in Afghanistan as well, but that's speculation
Don't get me started on that. Let's say I am of the same mind of a lot of former military in that "it's killing a lot of our boys, chewing up the rest and not healping enough to justify the first two"
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
no, Ian's in NY City proper, I am in a small town in the middle of America. And this is still 50K. If I was closer to the university here I could use a T1 connection and I was used to having a T3 (talk about being a low ping Mother Effer in Team Fortress)
josda1000 wrote:
I know. But think about it, we are a strong economy for a reason. We are the number 6 economy in the world, according to a report shown on Stossel's show last Thursday.
That doesn't change the fact that unless you are Walmart, you can do better just calling your competitor up and making a deal or just setting your prices to be the same and letting the loss due to competition be made up for by the margins of what you do get.
josda1000 wrote:
Honestly I think a lot of the pricing right now has to do with the constant war in Afghanistan as well, but that's speculation
Don't get me started on that. Let's say I am of the same mind of a lot of former military in that "it's killing a lot of our boys, chewing up the rest and not healping enough to justify the first two"
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Don't get me started on that. Let's say I am of the same mind of a lot of former military in that "it's killing a lot of our boys, chewing up the rest and not healping enough to justify the first two"
Just by this statement, in the end, we're on the same team. Good.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
josda1000 wrote:
Free trade means that you're NOT at war.
Well, sure. But free trade doesn't mean there can't be war. It's more that trade will stop as you move towards war.
josda1000 wrote:
AND one other thing. If this kind of fight DID break out, then wouldn't you want the citizenry armed?! That's what militias are all about. Just food for thought.
No, that would be stupid. I doubt the people working for AT&T will all suddenly be found to have guns and be ready to fight for the enemy on US soil. Any guns the citizens could have at home, won't help them much there. I am astounded that anyone can equate modern warfare to warfare 200 years ago, to think that this makes sense.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Any guns the citizens could have at home, won't help them much there
Because the Afghans are having no effect with their small arms?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
Well, there's all sorts of reasons that situation is different. Of course small arms can kill people, but there's no way that they represent a viable military option against the might of the US army. If you were in your own country, looking for rebels and criminals ( by their definition ), they would have no trouble winning that war, even if a few die along the way. The biggest issue is not the guns, but the men. You won't get US soldiers to fire on US citizens en masse. It's not going to happen. That's the biggest invalidator of the whole 'militia' idea.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Well, there's all sorts of reasons that situation is different. Of course small arms can kill people, but there's no way that they represent a viable military option against the might of the US army. If you were in your own country, looking for rebels and criminals ( by their definition ), they would have no trouble winning that war, even if a few die along the way. The biggest issue is not the guns, but the men. You won't get US soldiers to fire on US citizens en masse. It's not going to happen. That's the biggest invalidator of the whole 'militia' idea.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Of course small arms can kill people, but there's no way that they represent a viable military option against the might of the US army.
Tell that to the troops in Afghanistan.
Christian Graus wrote:
You won't get US soldiers to fire on US citizens en masse. It's not going to happen.
Huh. Tell that to Kent State. Could be I'm stupid, But the difference is just not obvious to me. Plus, you argue against yourself: Wouldn't be a 'viable military option' says ineffective, but 'Won't get US soldiers to fire' says the militias will be as effective as they want to be.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Of course small arms can kill people, but there's no way that they represent a viable military option against the might of the US army.
Tell that to the troops in Afghanistan.
Christian Graus wrote:
You won't get US soldiers to fire on US citizens en masse. It's not going to happen.
Huh. Tell that to Kent State. Could be I'm stupid, But the difference is just not obvious to me. Plus, you argue against yourself: Wouldn't be a 'viable military option' says ineffective, but 'Won't get US soldiers to fire' says the militias will be as effective as they want to be.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Could be I'm stupid
Could be :P
RichardM1 wrote:
Plus, you argue against yourself: Wouldn't be a 'viable military option' says ineffective, but 'Won't get US soldiers to fire' says the militias will be as effective as they want to be.
At the core, if I have a gun, I can shoot someone. If I enter a battle with a pop gun against a tank, I won't live long. Sure, Kent State happened, in a time of unrest and uncertainty, and certainly in a time where the soldiers were people who were more likely to blindly follow orders, than anyone alive today. At a minimum, the amendment in question does expect that your gun at home makes you able to fight a soldier from your country, or an invading country, in an open battlefield, and that is plain not true today.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Could be I'm stupid
Could be :P
RichardM1 wrote:
Plus, you argue against yourself: Wouldn't be a 'viable military option' says ineffective, but 'Won't get US soldiers to fire' says the militias will be as effective as they want to be.
At the core, if I have a gun, I can shoot someone. If I enter a battle with a pop gun against a tank, I won't live long. Sure, Kent State happened, in a time of unrest and uncertainty, and certainly in a time where the soldiers were people who were more likely to blindly follow orders, than anyone alive today. At a minimum, the amendment in question does expect that your gun at home makes you able to fight a soldier from your country, or an invading country, in an open battlefield, and that is plain not true today.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
At a minimum, the amendment in question does expect that your gun at home makes you able to fight a soldier from your country, or an invading country, in an open battlefield, and that is plain not true today.
What are the insurgents in the middle east using that is so much better? How are they keeping us from just sweeping the country free of them? What weapons do they have that would not be available to me, if I tried?
Opacity, the new Transparency.