Enough BP and other shenanigans... Onto the Post Office.
-
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.
-
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.
So you put an envelope inside an envelope, and that's how you're gonna get around my thinking? Because you took probably a manila envelope, and stuck your first class envelope in it? So you're validating two of my points. First, USPS has terrible hours because it's run out of money. Second, you're complaining (if I understand you correctly) about the use of a manila envelope that is legal for the UPS to use when I'm talking about that very fact: you can't send letters through anything but USPS. Did I miss anything?
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
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:
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.
Until EVERYONE is online (Which means, Internet access is as guaranteed as postal service is now, and subsidized for those who can't afford it), snail mail is still the fall-back... If your Internet access goes down, you can't use that as an excuse, because you could have mailed your tax return in the old-fashioned way. That also addresses your next point... If it's a necessity, it can't be allowed to live/die at the whims of the market.
josda1000 wrote:
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 the profit motive and boycotts, just like every other business.
And again... Until the market works itself out (Could be days, could be years), you're out of luck.
josda1000 wrote:
Those "nowheresville" people already drive 25 miles to get food, and that's more important! Why don't you lobby for that?
Says who? Could be a small farming community that only drives to the nearest big city to purchase luxury goods. Even if there are a couple hundred people, they're not profitable if they don't send and receive enough mail to pay for the delivery costs. No company wants to send a guy in a truck 25 miles every day to deliver a dozen letters. It wouldn't even pay for fuel costs. Sure, it's an extreme example, but it's entirely feasible.
josda1000 wrote:
Last line? Well, we have cars now, even though this forum hates oil. We also DO have phones. We should be moving on from the past. You want progression? Then allow yourself to progress!
Phones can't replace mail. Internet/E-mail can, but there are plenty of people without Internet access. If the postal system cuts them out, how are they going to receive things like bills, government notices, etc.
josda1000 wrote:
-
So you put an envelope inside an envelope, and that's how you're gonna get around my thinking? Because you took probably a manila envelope, and stuck your first class envelope in it? So you're validating two of my points. First, USPS has terrible hours because it's run out of money. Second, you're complaining (if I understand you correctly) about the use of a manila envelope that is legal for the UPS to use when I'm talking about that very fact: you can't send letters through anything but USPS. Did I miss anything?
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.Josh, relax. He admitted he was wrong about the monopoly on first-class... I corrected him earlier on that point anyway... He made some other valid points though.
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:
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:
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.
We cannot pay certain bills online. The companies refuse to take it. We cut them a check and send it via the mail. Heck, the biggest offender is my gas company. Should all companies be required to take online bill pay? I think that would sound like a private business being forced to do something at that point. Next, you are forgetting that a large portion of the US is sitting on dial up, doesn't have a computer, and people aren't required to have e-mail accounts. E-mail is not all inclusive.
josda1000 wrote:
The internet works. I've never seen that millennium bug pop up. The phones work. We've got to move on from this "we fear change!" thing. Stop being so fearful.
Stop thinking everyone uses the internet. My mom has no e-mail account, has not used electronic banking once, and thinks the internet is a series of nets. She should be forced to try and figure this stuff out when her biggest goal right now is to hold her newest grandchildren before another heart attack takes her from us? She could care less about computers, she just wants to enjoy the few years she has left without hassles and letters to and from my aunts and uncles make her smile. Of the 13 of them, My aunt Josephine is the only one that uses e-mail. But she's like 15 at heart.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
So you put an envelope inside an envelope, and that's how you're gonna get around my thinking? Because you took probably a manila envelope, and stuck your first class envelope in it? So you're validating two of my points. First, USPS has terrible hours because it's run out of money. Second, you're complaining (if I understand you correctly) about the use of a manila envelope that is legal for the UPS to use when I'm talking about that very fact: you can't send letters through anything but USPS. Did I miss anything?
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.You ignored my point on collusion, them not sending stuff and the fact that to be profitable a private company would either stop offering a servicve or charge so much that it would stop being used (and so they drop it) and you latch on to me screwing up. Bravo. Now answer the point on how companies no longer compete for business but instead just all put a united front up and charge as much as they like.
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.
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:
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.
I hear you, it could be. But you're comparing blowup dolls to bills. I'm sorry, but I really disagree here.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
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.
This is why people tend to congregate in cities: the market is always cheaper when there's competition. When there's a lack of competition (gas being more in one place than 15 miles away) there's a defacto monopoly on the location. You can do what you want in the location. So again: competition breeds lower prices. As to the Mastercard thing, we've been over this: something that was supposed to be a benefit accidentally created the opposite. Get out of credit cards. Debt is wrong.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
josda1000 wrote:
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.
We cannot pay certain bills online. The companies refuse to take it. We cut them a check and send it via the mail. Heck, the biggest offender is my gas company. Should all companies be required to take online bill pay? I think that would sound like a private business being forced to do something at that point. Next, you are forgetting that a large portion of the US is sitting on dial up, doesn't have a computer, and people aren't required to have e-mail accounts. E-mail is not all inclusive.
josda1000 wrote:
The internet works. I've never seen that millennium bug pop up. The phones work. We've got to move on from this "we fear change!" thing. Stop being so fearful.
Stop thinking everyone uses the internet. My mom has no e-mail account, has not used electronic banking once, and thinks the internet is a series of nets. She should be forced to try and figure this stuff out when her biggest goal right now is to hold her newest grandchildren before another heart attack takes her from us? She could care less about computers, she just wants to enjoy the few years she has left without hassles and letters to and from my aunts and uncles make her smile. Of the 13 of them, My aunt Josephine is the only one that uses e-mail. But she's like 15 at heart.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
You're right about all of this... some people have not got out of the snail mail thing. But that's precisely my point. We should be out of it. We don't need a monopoly on snail mail just because some people do rely on it.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
You ignored my point on collusion, them not sending stuff and the fact that to be profitable a private company would either stop offering a servicve or charge so much that it would stop being used (and so they drop it) and you latch on to me screwing up. Bravo. Now answer the point on how companies no longer compete for business but instead just all put a united front up and charge as much as they like.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
I think you gave me a total of twenty minutes, and I am at work. Thanks. Sorry I didn't answer the whole thing, but I've got a lot more crap from you than you me.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.I use sarcasm and expect you to get it. You have almost every time. I will look at your points and see where we differ and where we are in agreement, as you do. I may give you crap, but I do so because you are one of the more fun people to debate with on here and it is a peer thing. You are rational (even if I don't agree with your rationale, it makes sense and is internally consistant) and intelligent. When you go to CSS debate techniques I get angry though. I expect more from you Josh. You ignored 3 points, focused on a mistake, that was admitted to, and latched on. That's the stuff of other folks, you normally go point for point and don't hold back. I admire that. Keep it up. You may not convert me to yoru view, but you will still get my respect and my willingness to defend your right to have that view. Even if you don't need it.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
I use sarcasm and expect you to get it. You have almost every time. I will look at your points and see where we differ and where we are in agreement, as you do. I may give you crap, but I do so because you are one of the more fun people to debate with on here and it is a peer thing. You are rational (even if I don't agree with your rationale, it makes sense and is internally consistant) and intelligent. When you go to CSS debate techniques I get angry though. I expect more from you Josh. You ignored 3 points, focused on a mistake, that was admitted to, and latched on. That's the stuff of other folks, you normally go point for point and don't hold back. I admire that. Keep it up. You may not convert me to yoru view, but you will still get my respect and my willingness to defend your right to have that view. Even if you don't need it.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
You may not convert me to yoru view, but you will still get my respect and my willingness to defend your right to have that view. Even if you don't need it.
Thanks. Likewise.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
I use sarcasm and expect you to get it. You have almost every time.
I do hear you, however sometimes it's hard when typing it. It's not like it's a real voice, you know what I mean?
ragnaroknrol wrote:
When you go to CSS debate techniques I get angry though. I expect more from you Josh.
The problem is, I've seen you, Christian, and Josh do the same thing. Knowing the number of people that actually come here, there are probably more. I appreciate the compliments, but just watch out. We all do it. CSS may do it more often than anyone here, but the thing is, we all do. As to the fact that I missed your other points, I'm sorry, I'll try to follow through next time.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
You're right about all of this... some people have not got out of the snail mail thing. But that's precisely my point. We should be out of it. We don't need a monopoly on snail mail just because some people do rely on it.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.And how do we fix that? It would take a radical change to the system OR some time. With the first you have all the problems associated with forcing people to adopt to something they may not be able to. With the second you let the change happen and the market/tech/ability will eventually catch up and then the USPS is no longer needed. But until that point, we need to keep that safety net in place. It may not bug you or me, but some folks out there would be majorly screwed by losing the USPS. And we should try to think of them before scrapping something just because it is not making money. Sometimes people need to be put ahead of profits.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
You may not convert me to yoru view, but you will still get my respect and my willingness to defend your right to have that view. Even if you don't need it.
Thanks. Likewise.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
I use sarcasm and expect you to get it. You have almost every time.
I do hear you, however sometimes it's hard when typing it. It's not like it's a real voice, you know what I mean?
ragnaroknrol wrote:
When you go to CSS debate techniques I get angry though. I expect more from you Josh.
The problem is, I've seen you, Christian, and Josh do the same thing. Knowing the number of people that actually come here, there are probably more. I appreciate the compliments, but just watch out. We all do it. CSS may do it more often than anyone here, but the thing is, we all do. As to the fact that I missed your other points, I'm sorry, I'll try to follow through next time.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.You and Ian are very good about going point for point. And even though we all do that sometimes, we don't do it in an insulting manner most times. We latch on and show how wrong the point is, but even then, we usually acknowledge the other stuff. And that other stuff was the actual point of it. Truth is, I am almost to the point of trying 1 or 2 things when it comes to CSS. Just to see how they work.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
And how do we fix that? It would take a radical change to the system OR some time. With the first you have all the problems associated with forcing people to adopt to something they may not be able to. With the second you let the change happen and the market/tech/ability will eventually catch up and then the USPS is no longer needed. But until that point, we need to keep that safety net in place. It may not bug you or me, but some folks out there would be majorly screwed by losing the USPS. And we should try to think of them before scrapping something just because it is not making money. Sometimes people need to be put ahead of profits.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
And we should try to think of them before scrapping something just because it is not making money.
The thing is, because it's not making money, you know it's mostly NOT helping people. Agreed, at the moment, people still use snail mail. But think of it: if we got rid of the Post Office, then yes it would force people to make choices for themselves! It's not that they're forced to do something, except that they have to figure out a way to do something else! Holy crap, they have to use their brains and do something. Now I understand that this means either A) they'd have to pay for the internet, B) they'd need a phone (which they probably already have), C) they'd need a car (which they probably already have, it's been near a century since we invented it), or D) they'd have to use the new business side model of the Post Office (which I'm leaning towards). So, IF the USPS were privatized, and the FedEx and UPS versions of the post office didn't work out, then what you'd see is a failure in the market to accept an old idea. If it did work, then the market (people) would still want it, and the business would probably work out a lot better than it does now. But yes, you're right, it is a matter of time before the whole system will end up on the net, I believe. We're already into Windows 7 for goodness sake! lol
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
ragnaroknrol wrote:
And we should try to think of them before scrapping something just because it is not making money.
The thing is, because it's not making money, you know it's mostly NOT helping people. Agreed, at the moment, people still use snail mail. But think of it: if we got rid of the Post Office, then yes it would force people to make choices for themselves! It's not that they're forced to do something, except that they have to figure out a way to do something else! Holy crap, they have to use their brains and do something. Now I understand that this means either A) they'd have to pay for the internet, B) they'd need a phone (which they probably already have), C) they'd need a car (which they probably already have, it's been near a century since we invented it), or D) they'd have to use the new business side model of the Post Office (which I'm leaning towards). So, IF the USPS were privatized, and the FedEx and UPS versions of the post office didn't work out, then what you'd see is a failure in the market to accept an old idea. If it did work, then the market (people) would still want it, and the business would probably work out a lot better than it does now. But yes, you're right, it is a matter of time before the whole system will end up on the net, I believe. We're already into Windows 7 for goodness sake! lol
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.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'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.