Enough BP and other shenanigans... Onto the Post Office.
-
I think that's the first time I've ever said the word "shenanigans"... How about this little talking point about the Constitution: The post office is a power of the Congress. However, should it privatized, and taken out of the document? Discuss. -- edit -- BTW, Ian and I did discuss this a bit a few months ago, but I figured it's something to ponder.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
I think that's the first time I've ever said the word "shenanigans"... How about this little talking point about the Constitution: The post office is a power of the Congress. However, should it privatized, and taken out of the document? Discuss. -- edit -- BTW, Ian and I did discuss this a bit a few months ago, but I figured it's something to ponder.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.I think privatisation is insane. If the postal service, the phone service, etc of a country, so many vital services, are owned by multi national companies, where is your national sovereignty ?
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.
-
I think privatisation is insane. If the postal service, the phone service, etc of a country, so many vital services, are owned by multi national companies, where is your national sovereignty ?
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.
First: Phone service is done, here, by companies. Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, etc. Second: Postal service, for the most part, is done by FedEx, UPS AND USPS (United States Postal Service). The only thing that USPS has a monopoly on is First Class Mail. Thrid: As to national sovereignty, technically in the USA, the States are the sovereigns. National sovereignty here is a myth, IMO. The States created the federal government, and under Amendment 10, the states still retain all powers not delegated to the United States of America. Sovereignty comes down to power. Just because you're giving up power to be privatized doesn't mean you can't govern.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
First: Phone service is done, here, by companies. Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, etc. Second: Postal service, for the most part, is done by FedEx, UPS AND USPS (United States Postal Service). The only thing that USPS has a monopoly on is First Class Mail. Thrid: As to national sovereignty, technically in the USA, the States are the sovereigns. National sovereignty here is a myth, IMO. The States created the federal government, and under Amendment 10, the states still retain all powers not delegated to the United States of America. Sovereignty comes down to power. Just because you're giving up power to be privatized doesn't mean you can't govern.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
As to national sovereignty, technically in the USA, the States are the sovereigns.
Yeah, that's pretty messed up. I know why it happened.
josda1000 wrote:
Sovereignty comes down to power. Just because you're giving up power to be privatized doesn't mean you can't govern.
In theory. When a war starts, what happens then ? Do you have to also focus on taking that stuff back by force ?
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.
-
josda1000 wrote:
As to national sovereignty, technically in the USA, the States are the sovereigns.
Yeah, that's pretty messed up. I know why it happened.
josda1000 wrote:
Sovereignty comes down to power. Just because you're giving up power to be privatized doesn't mean you can't govern.
In theory. When a war starts, what happens then ? Do you have to also focus on taking that stuff back by force ?
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.
-
I think that's the first time I've ever said the word "shenanigans"... How about this little talking point about the Constitution: The post office is a power of the Congress. However, should it privatized, and taken out of the document? Discuss. -- edit -- BTW, Ian and I did discuss this a bit a few months ago, but I figured it's something to ponder.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.How privatized? It already operates like a private company, though still answerable to the government. As a card-carrying member of The United Pessimists League of Earth (We've got a real pair, if you know what I mean), allow me to present just a few of the possible problems... a) A private company operates in its own self-interest, and its goal is to generate profits. Imagine the horror stories of "We've decided it's no longer economical to run a delivery service to your area, so your town will no longer receive mail. To use the postal service, please drive 25 miles to Overthereville and rent a P.O. box." Soon after that, you'd hear "Sign up for our Overthereville delivery service to get your mail! Only $29.99 a month!" And if you can't afford it, too bad. Sure, prices will drop eventually, but in the meantime, you don't get mail. b) Walmart has a policy of not carrying M-rated games or NC-17 movies, and since they're a private company, no one can force them to do otherwise. What if the Post Office adopted a similar policy? c) Multiple postal systems could introduce some competition, but would each of them deliver everywhere? What if only the most expensive one delivers to your city? d) The government is reliant on the postal system for administrative things, such as the census, jury duty, taxes, basically any sort of government business. Do they contract with one company, or do they divide everything up? Don't want to suggest possible corruption, as Post Office XYZ might be bribing people to get the contract. I can think of a few more, but let's start with four.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
How privatized? It already operates like a private company, though still answerable to the government. As a card-carrying member of The United Pessimists League of Earth (We've got a real pair, if you know what I mean), allow me to present just a few of the possible problems... a) A private company operates in its own self-interest, and its goal is to generate profits. Imagine the horror stories of "We've decided it's no longer economical to run a delivery service to your area, so your town will no longer receive mail. To use the postal service, please drive 25 miles to Overthereville and rent a P.O. box." Soon after that, you'd hear "Sign up for our Overthereville delivery service to get your mail! Only $29.99 a month!" And if you can't afford it, too bad. Sure, prices will drop eventually, but in the meantime, you don't get mail. b) Walmart has a policy of not carrying M-rated games or NC-17 movies, and since they're a private company, no one can force them to do otherwise. What if the Post Office adopted a similar policy? c) Multiple postal systems could introduce some competition, but would each of them deliver everywhere? What if only the most expensive one delivers to your city? d) The government is reliant on the postal system for administrative things, such as the census, jury duty, taxes, basically any sort of government business. Do they contract with one company, or do they divide everything up? Don't want to suggest possible corruption, as Post Office XYZ might be bribing people to get the contract. I can think of a few more, but let's start with four.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
a) A private company operates in its own self-interest, and its goal is to generate profits. Imagine the horror stories of "We've decided it's no longer economical to run a delivery service to your area, so your town will no longer receive mail. To use the postal service, please drive 25 miles to Overthereville and rent a P.O. box." Soon after that, you'd hear "Sign up for our Overthereville delivery service to get your mail! Only $29.99 a month!" And if you can't afford it, too bad. Sure, prices will drop eventually, but in the meantime, you don't get mail.
Time. Out. First, I think we've been over this argument before, and I said that this will most likely NOT happen, for the very fact that the companies are already there, waiting to compete with the USPS in this area. Packages may get sent to an area and not to houses/apartments/etc in certain out-of-range cases, but mail gets delivered literally every day except Sundays.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Walmart has a policy of not carrying M-rated games or NC-17 movies, and since they're a private company, no one can force them to do otherwise. What if the Post Office adopted a similar policy?
They can't, and don't. You said it yourself, they already act like a private company. Do you see UPS and FedEx discriminating on which packages to send and which not? This is a terrible argument.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Multiple postal systems could introduce some competition, but would each of them deliver everywhere? What if only the most expensive one delivers to your city?
That may be a flaw in the system, however, most likely other businesses would want to compete against it in order to get a chunk of the market, in turn bringing prices down.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The government is reliant on the postal system for administrative things, such as the census, jury duty, taxes, basically any sort of government business. Do they contract with one company, or do they divide everything up? Don't want to suggest possible corruption, as Post Office XYZ might be bribing people to get the contract.
I don't know the answer to this question, that's not in my crystal ball. But I'd expect that they'd contract for like a three month period to the one that best services at the time, in order to save money themselves. Thin
-
Christian Graus wrote:
When a war starts, what happens then ? Do you have to also focus on taking that stuff back by force ?
What stuff? Can you explain yourself here?
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.So, say the companies that run the cell phones in your country are Chinese owned, and you go to war with China. Do you a - assume they will respect your privacy on the phone b - stop using mobile phones c - take the network over by force
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.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
a) A private company operates in its own self-interest, and its goal is to generate profits. Imagine the horror stories of "We've decided it's no longer economical to run a delivery service to your area, so your town will no longer receive mail. To use the postal service, please drive 25 miles to Overthereville and rent a P.O. box." Soon after that, you'd hear "Sign up for our Overthereville delivery service to get your mail! Only $29.99 a month!" And if you can't afford it, too bad. Sure, prices will drop eventually, but in the meantime, you don't get mail.
Time. Out. First, I think we've been over this argument before, and I said that this will most likely NOT happen, for the very fact that the companies are already there, waiting to compete with the USPS in this area. Packages may get sent to an area and not to houses/apartments/etc in certain out-of-range cases, but mail gets delivered literally every day except Sundays.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Walmart has a policy of not carrying M-rated games or NC-17 movies, and since they're a private company, no one can force them to do otherwise. What if the Post Office adopted a similar policy?
They can't, and don't. You said it yourself, they already act like a private company. Do you see UPS and FedEx discriminating on which packages to send and which not? This is a terrible argument.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Multiple postal systems could introduce some competition, but would each of them deliver everywhere? What if only the most expensive one delivers to your city?
That may be a flaw in the system, however, most likely other businesses would want to compete against it in order to get a chunk of the market, in turn bringing prices down.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The government is reliant on the postal system for administrative things, such as the census, jury duty, taxes, basically any sort of government business. Do they contract with one company, or do they divide everything up? Don't want to suggest possible corruption, as Post Office XYZ might be bribing people to get the contract.
I don't know the answer to this question, that's not in my crystal ball. But I'd expect that they'd contract for like a three month period to the one that best services at the time, in order to save money themselves. Thin
josda1000 wrote:
Time. Out. First, I think we've been over this argument before, and I said that this will most likely NOT happen, for the very fact that the companies are already there, waiting to compete with the USPS in this area. Packages may get sent to an area and not to houses/apartments/etc in certain out-of-range cases, but mail gets delivered literally every day except Sundays.
Most likely? That's not a good phrase for a service that's viewed as absolutely necessary, and which the federal government relies on to send you important information. And what happens when they have to cut their budget? The USPS is losing money, remember? They're already thinking of cutting Saturday delivery, because the financials just aren't there. Remove the regulations, and the company can do whatever it wants.
josda1000 wrote:
They can't, and don't. You said it yourself, they already act like a private company. Do you see UPS and FedEx discriminating on which packages to send and which not? This is a terrible argument.
Except they're currently very strictly regulated. They can't censor NOW, but if they become entirely privatized (As in, the government isn't telling them what to do), what happens then?
josda1000 wrote:
That may be a flaw in the system, however, most likely other businesses would want to compete against it in order to get a chunk of the market, in turn bringing prices down.
Eventually, hopefully, maybe... Meanwhile, the people in Nowheresville have to drive 25 miles to get their mail.
josda1000 wrote:
I don't know the answer to this question, that's not in my crystal ball. But I'd expect that they'd contract for like a three month period to the one that best services at the time, in order to save money themselves. Think of the way the government contracts for military purposes, like Raytheon and Boeing.
Fair enough, though it'd be a pretty delicate situation. I guess my point is that unlike television or mobile phones, the postal service is viewed as a requirement for civilized existence. It's like the last line of defense before you become entirely unreachable. It needs to be standardized, all-inclusive, and national. The government (Be it local, state, or federal) needs to be able to contact you, and the postal system is the one that's pretty much guar
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
a) A private company operates in its own self-interest, and its goal is to generate profits. Imagine the horror stories of "We've decided it's no longer economical to run a delivery service to your area, so your town will no longer receive mail. To use the postal service, please drive 25 miles to Overthereville and rent a P.O. box." Soon after that, you'd hear "Sign up for our Overthereville delivery service to get your mail! Only $29.99 a month!" And if you can't afford it, too bad. Sure, prices will drop eventually, but in the meantime, you don't get mail.
Time. Out. First, I think we've been over this argument before, and I said that this will most likely NOT happen, for the very fact that the companies are already there, waiting to compete with the USPS in this area. Packages may get sent to an area and not to houses/apartments/etc in certain out-of-range cases, but mail gets delivered literally every day except Sundays.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Walmart has a policy of not carrying M-rated games or NC-17 movies, and since they're a private company, no one can force them to do otherwise. What if the Post Office adopted a similar policy?
They can't, and don't. You said it yourself, they already act like a private company. Do you see UPS and FedEx discriminating on which packages to send and which not? This is a terrible argument.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Multiple postal systems could introduce some competition, but would each of them deliver everywhere? What if only the most expensive one delivers to your city?
That may be a flaw in the system, however, most likely other businesses would want to compete against it in order to get a chunk of the market, in turn bringing prices down.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The government is reliant on the postal system for administrative things, such as the census, jury duty, taxes, basically any sort of government business. Do they contract with one company, or do they divide everything up? Don't want to suggest possible corruption, as Post Office XYZ might be bribing people to get the contract.
I don't know the answer to this question, that's not in my crystal ball. But I'd expect that they'd contract for like a three month period to the one that best services at the time, in order to save money themselves. Thin
josda1000 wrote:
Time. Out. First, I think we've been over this argument before, and I said that this will most likely NOT happen, for the very fact that the companies are already there, waiting to compete with the USPS in this area. Packages may get sent to an area and not to houses/apartments/etc in certain out-of-range cases, but mail gets delivered literally every day except Sundays.
Last I checked I could send a letter to my mom for <$1. If I tried to send the same letter via UPS with no alteration in time it would be >$5, and they won't deliver it to her door. The USPS does not stop UPS from doing anything so why does this work this way? Because a long time ago UPS figured out there was no profit to be made from doing mail as cheaply as the USPS. I seriously doubt any company would want to try and take the post office's place.
josda1000 wrote:
They can't, and don't. You said it yourself, they already act like a private company. Do you see UPS and FedEx discriminating on which packages to send and which not? This is a terrible argument.
I have. I once tried to send a blow up doll in a clear package to a friend for his birthday. UPS would not accept the package. The teller felt uncomfortable and the manager backed her up on it. I was told to take it somewhere else. It is not a terrible argument. You see, when you rely on a private company to deliever what is essentially an necessity (how many bills do you get in the mail?) you open up a nasty situation where those items can be denied and the result is much worse than a standard situation.
josda1000 wrote:
That may be a flaw in the system, however, most likely other businesses would want to compete against it in order to get a chunk of the market, in turn bringing prices down.
This is always brought up. And from what I can see, this is purely last century thinking. Mastercard went into the reward card business and they and Visa BOTH raised prices for the stores, not lowered. Locally the gas price is 7 cents above the price in a town 15 miles south. The town has 3 gas stations, I can see 3 from a Caseys. None of the local stations will break ranks and lower prices. And they are always more than any town in 30 miles. Heck, I see stuff right on expressways cheaper. You let someone collude without any sort of penalty, and they will. Why compete when
-
josda1000 wrote:
Time. Out. First, I think we've been over this argument before, and I said that this will most likely NOT happen, for the very fact that the companies are already there, waiting to compete with the USPS in this area. Packages may get sent to an area and not to houses/apartments/etc in certain out-of-range cases, but mail gets delivered literally every day except Sundays.
Last I checked I could send a letter to my mom for <$1. If I tried to send the same letter via UPS with no alteration in time it would be >$5, and they won't deliver it to her door. The USPS does not stop UPS from doing anything so why does this work this way? Because a long time ago UPS figured out there was no profit to be made from doing mail as cheaply as the USPS. I seriously doubt any company would want to try and take the post office's place.
josda1000 wrote:
They can't, and don't. You said it yourself, they already act like a private company. Do you see UPS and FedEx discriminating on which packages to send and which not? This is a terrible argument.
I have. I once tried to send a blow up doll in a clear package to a friend for his birthday. UPS would not accept the package. The teller felt uncomfortable and the manager backed her up on it. I was told to take it somewhere else. It is not a terrible argument. You see, when you rely on a private company to deliever what is essentially an necessity (how many bills do you get in the mail?) you open up a nasty situation where those items can be denied and the result is much worse than a standard situation.
josda1000 wrote:
That may be a flaw in the system, however, most likely other businesses would want to compete against it in order to get a chunk of the market, in turn bringing prices down.
This is always brought up. And from what I can see, this is purely last century thinking. Mastercard went into the reward card business and they and Visa BOTH raised prices for the stores, not lowered. Locally the gas price is 7 cents above the price in a town 15 miles south. The town has 3 gas stations, I can see 3 from a Caseys. None of the local stations will break ranks and lower prices. And they are always more than any town in 30 miles. Heck, I see stuff right on expressways cheaper. You let someone collude without any sort of penalty, and they will. Why compete when
ragnaroknrol wrote:
The USPS does not stop UPS from doing anything so why does this work this way? Because a long time ago UPS figured out there was no profit to be made from doing mail as cheaply as the USPS.
Technically, the USPS has a government-enforced monopoly on certain kinds of mail. UPS is not permitted to deliver first-class mail (Which is basically anything you stick in an envelope). Otherwise, 100% agreed.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
So, say the companies that run the cell phones in your country are Chinese owned, and you go to war with China. Do you a - assume they will respect your privacy on the phone b - stop using mobile phones c - take the network over by force
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.
Ahh I see. I have no idea... though knowing me, I think I'd be afraid to use the phone, yeah. So I'd go with B. But, think of the greater aspects here. Free trade means that you're NOT at war. If you're going to start a war, you have to put on a trade barrier first. As Frederic Bastiat said, "When goods don't cross borders, soldiers will." 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.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
ragnaroknrol wrote:
The USPS does not stop UPS from doing anything so why does this work this way? Because a long time ago UPS figured out there was no profit to be made from doing mail as cheaply as the USPS.
Technically, the USPS has a government-enforced monopoly on certain kinds of mail. UPS is not permitted to deliver first-class mail (Which is basically anything you stick in an envelope). Otherwise, 100% agreed.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
UPS is not permitted to deliver first-class mail (Which is basically anything you stick in an envelope).
I did not know that. Learn something new every day! I found that the more I do this the closer in worldview to my son I get. The way he sees things is so incredible I would be happy to be closer to it.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Ahh I see. I have no idea... though knowing me, I think I'd be afraid to use the phone, yeah. So I'd go with B. But, think of the greater aspects here. Free trade means that you're NOT at war. If you're going to start a war, you have to put on a trade barrier first. As Frederic Bastiat said, "When goods don't cross borders, soldiers will." 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.
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.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
UPS is not permitted to deliver first-class mail (Which is basically anything you stick in an envelope).
I did not know that. Learn something new every day! I found that the more I do this the closer in worldview to my son I get. The way he sees things is so incredible I would be happy to be closer to it.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
That's why I like this forum... 1) Learn to deal with morons (Pillowpants)... Which is a real-world, marketable skill. 2) Learn more about interesting subjects while debating them with intelligent people (Almost everyone else).
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
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. I am astounded that anyone can equate modern warfare to warfare 200 years ago, to think that this makes sense.
Everyone grew up with Red Dawn. I blame Patrick Swayze for the grossly incorrect belief that anything short of military arms will help anything. When the US was young, warfare DID use weaponry that citizens had access to. But weaponry has gotten a LOT deadlier. No one really wants things designed to punch holes in tanks to be in circulation. No one wants .50 calibur sniper rifles to be common, and no one thinks about the simple conclusion that unless you allow weaponry that will negate the ability of law enforcement to function to be on the street, the "we can be a militia" comment isn't valid. The national guard is the militia, and they don't hand out M-16A3s to people to take home.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
That's why I like this forum... 1) Learn to deal with morons (Pillowpants)... Which is a real-world, marketable skill. 2) Learn more about interesting subjects while debating them with intelligent people (Almost everyone else).
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels):thumbsup:
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
josda1000 wrote:
Time. Out. First, I think we've been over this argument before, and I said that this will most likely NOT happen, for the very fact that the companies are already there, waiting to compete with the USPS in this area. Packages may get sent to an area and not to houses/apartments/etc in certain out-of-range cases, but mail gets delivered literally every day except Sundays.
Most likely? That's not a good phrase for a service that's viewed as absolutely necessary, and which the federal government relies on to send you important information. And what happens when they have to cut their budget? The USPS is losing money, remember? They're already thinking of cutting Saturday delivery, because the financials just aren't there. Remove the regulations, and the company can do whatever it wants.
josda1000 wrote:
They can't, and don't. You said it yourself, they already act like a private company. Do you see UPS and FedEx discriminating on which packages to send and which not? This is a terrible argument.
Except they're currently very strictly regulated. They can't censor NOW, but if they become entirely privatized (As in, the government isn't telling them what to do), what happens then?
josda1000 wrote:
That may be a flaw in the system, however, most likely other businesses would want to compete against it in order to get a chunk of the market, in turn bringing prices down.
Eventually, hopefully, maybe... Meanwhile, the people in Nowheresville have to drive 25 miles to get their mail.
josda1000 wrote:
I don't know the answer to this question, that's not in my crystal ball. But I'd expect that they'd contract for like a three month period to the one that best services at the time, in order to save money themselves. Think of the way the government contracts for military purposes, like Raytheon and Boeing.
Fair enough, though it'd be a pretty delicate situation. I guess my point is that unlike television or mobile phones, the postal service is viewed as a requirement for civilized existence. It's like the last line of defense before you become entirely unreachable. It needs to be standardized, all-inclusive, and national. The government (Be it local, state, or federal) needs to be able to contact you, and the postal system is the one that's pretty much guar
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Most likely? That's not a good phrase for a service that's viewed as absolutely necessary, and which the federal government relies on to send you important information.
1. It's relying on this mode of exchange less and less all the time, esp with the idea of "e-file" for income tax purposes. 2. Absolutely necessary? Are you living in the dark ages or something? Bills are paid online now. Letters are sent through email. Cell Phones are still getting better. Faxes are even going by the way side. I'd say it's become a lot less necessary. Remember, we're only talking about first class mail.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And what happens when they have to cut their budget? The USPS is losing money, remember? They're already thinking of cutting Saturday delivery, because the financials just aren't there. Remove the regulations, and the company can do whatever it wants.
This is because the government does things inefficiently. Even though it took on a business model, it is, and has been, broke. Yet, they're still alive. While people are using mail less and less all the time, it's allowed to stay afloat. Why does it have to go to EVERY house? To deliver junk mail? Really, if they wanted to stay alive, they should have been bumping up their prices from like 44c a letter to $1 or something. Just because you would be inconvienienced doesn't mean it's logical to keep them alive. It's almost like, just because I liked "Home Improvement" doesn't mean it had to stay on the air. But more to the point, if they truly were a business, they would be able to live/die according to the needs of the market, not according to "popular belief" of the citizens. If they really needed it, it'd be doing a lot better than it is now.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Except they're currently very strictly regulated. They can't censor NOW, but if they become entirely privatized (As in, the government isn't telling them what to do), what happens then?
Honestly, the government is the one that you should be afraid of. Why are you more afraid of your packages getting scanned than your own body through the body scanners at airports?! Isn't that a bit backwards? To your point, that may happen, however if it does, there will most likely (yes, most likely) be those that scan and those that don't. The market will determine which is best, through
-
josda1000 wrote:
Time. Out. First, I think we've been over this argument before, and I said that this will most likely NOT happen, for the very fact that the companies are already there, waiting to compete with the USPS in this area. Packages may get sent to an area and not to houses/apartments/etc in certain out-of-range cases, but mail gets delivered literally every day except Sundays.
Last I checked I could send a letter to my mom for <$1. If I tried to send the same letter via UPS with no alteration in time it would be >$5, and they won't deliver it to her door. The USPS does not stop UPS from doing anything so why does this work this way? Because a long time ago UPS figured out there was no profit to be made from doing mail as cheaply as the USPS. I seriously doubt any company would want to try and take the post office's place.
josda1000 wrote:
They can't, and don't. You said it yourself, they already act like a private company. Do you see UPS and FedEx discriminating on which packages to send and which not? This is a terrible argument.
I have. I once tried to send a blow up doll in a clear package to a friend for his birthday. UPS would not accept the package. The teller felt uncomfortable and the manager backed her up on it. I was told to take it somewhere else. It is not a terrible argument. You see, when you rely on a private company to deliever what is essentially an necessity (how many bills do you get in the mail?) you open up a nasty situation where those items can be denied and the result is much worse than a standard situation.
josda1000 wrote:
That may be a flaw in the system, however, most likely other businesses would want to compete against it in order to get a chunk of the market, in turn bringing prices down.
This is always brought up. And from what I can see, this is purely last century thinking. Mastercard went into the reward card business and they and Visa BOTH raised prices for the stores, not lowered. Locally the gas price is 7 cents above the price in a town 15 miles south. The town has 3 gas stations, I can see 3 from a Caseys. None of the local stations will break ranks and lower prices. And they are always more than any town in 30 miles. Heck, I see stuff right on expressways cheaper. You let someone collude without any sort of penalty, and they will. Why compete when
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Last I checked I could send a letter to my mom for <$1. If I tried to send the same letter via UPS with no alteration in time it would be >$5
This is a lie. First class mail is limited to the USPS only.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
I seriously doubt any company would want to try and take the post office's place.
Again, this is a lie. First, according to you, they already do first class mail. So how can they take the place of the USPS if they're already doing the job? The rest of this is unbearable to read, just on the aforementioned statements.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Last I checked I could send a letter to my mom for <$1. If I tried to send the same letter via UPS with no alteration in time it would be >$5
This is a lie. First class mail is limited to the USPS only.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
I seriously doubt any company would want to try and take the post office's place.
Again, this is a lie. First, according to you, they already do first class mail. So how can they take the place of the USPS if they're already doing the job? The rest of this is unbearable to read, just on the aforementioned statements.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.Weird thing is I have sent a letter to mom via UPS. It was in an envelope, inside one of their envelopes for $5. They may not do first class, but they take flat envelopes inside their big ones. Had I known about the first class prohibition I might have tried something different, but the UPS store was open, and USPS was not. Feel free to ignore valid points tho
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.