The same big government that conservatives don't trust to run health care, Social Security, schools or anything else magically becomes infallible when it comes to torturing terrorists and holding them without trial.
So the same people who can't do anything right can tell who is a terrorist wtih 100% accuracy using their detect evil powers.
sorry I just came from /tg/, pardon my image-based reaction
but seriously tho, the "<insert political affiliation here> are evil/stupid/etc" threads that show up on pretty much every site ever these days get a little tiresome after a while.
Well, one could argue that it takes someone truely evil to detect evil in another.
Thus as government attracts evil people, it is reasonable to assume that they staff their tortu... erm... questioning teams with suitable candidates...
Alex Kolodotschko wrote:I'm still not 100% sure what a gumdrop is.
Forgive me for being an ignorant Brit but is is a jellybean or just a blanket term for jelly sweets?
EDIT: Just done a google image search. We brits call that type of sweet Jelly Tots. Interesting, huh?
Jelly Tots are OK but I much prefer Tootie Frooties.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:I'll see your tootie frooties and raise you one WHAM BAR...
Wham bar, now there's a blast from the past. That and the ubiquitous Highland toffee bars that they occasionally gave away free with the Beano or Dandy.
Rather then try unlawful enemy combats in a military court, let’s give them the rights of American citizens and provide tax payer funded lawyers that will fight to get them off the hook on a technicality so they can go back to their buddies with all the brand new info they obtained…
MeanGreenStompa wrote:I'll see your tootie frooties and raise you one WHAM BAR...
Wham bar, now there's a blast from the past. That and the ubiquitous Highland toffee bars that they occasionally gave away free with the Beano or Dandy.
NONE CAN STAND BEFORE MY MIGHTY MANTICORE BAR! Oh yes....it had a sting in it's tail. Can't find it on the Interwebs.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:I'll see your tootie frooties and raise you one WHAM BAR...
I remember there being outrage at my school when they banned Wham bars and Highland toffee bars because some Fethwit managed to pull out his front teeth on one.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:I'll see your tootie frooties and raise you one WHAM BAR...
I remember there being outrage at my school when they banned Wham bars and Highland toffee bars because some Fethwit managed to pull out his front teeth on one.
Quatro was a strongly 'tropical flavoured' fizzy drink (passionfruit tasting) that was laced with E numbers, the combination of a can of that stuff and WHAM bars left me high as a kite after swimming club each Wednesday and buzzing my little nuts off for hours, whilst watching Monkey Magic!
No wonder I'm fethed up...
It was the latest rant from our esteemed former VP. I cannot believe that I know more about US law than he does.
Envy89 wrote:O... O... I have a better idear.
Rather then try unlawful enemy combats in a military court, let’s give them the rights of American citizens and provide tax payer funded lawyers that will fight to get them off the hook on a technicality so they can go back to their buddies with all the brand new info they obtained…
Yup, that makes loads of sense.
1 - Rights are not limited to Amcits, the Consititution says 'persons' not just US citizens. Lawful immigrants, guests and even unlawful immigrants have the right to counsel and trial.
2 - We provide tax-payer funded counsel to drug dealers, rapists, serial killers, wife beaters, child molesters, drunk drivers, muggers, burglers, embezzelers, ponzi schemers and people who pull off mattress tags. If you want to oppose the idea of counsel for the accused go ahead, or even better move to Red China where it's not an issue. No. Wait. Last year Red China passed a law guaranteeing counsel to the accused (didn't do such a hot job impementing it) so I guess you'll need to move to North Korea.
3 - Bush's military tribunals freed Guantanamo inmates who are now running Al Qaida in the Arabian Penninsula. So unless we want to move to a system of accused=guilty=execution there will always be some who escape justice.
4 - Is this it? I mean are prominent Americans really saying that we need to more repressive than the PRC to keep us 'safe'? We didn't do this when the country was on the brink of destruction in 1812, nor in 1861, or even in 1941 (though we came close with the Japanese interment). We didn't react this way to the KKK or left-wing terriorists in the 60 or right-wing ones in the 90s but now I hear people seriously saying that right to counsel should not exist if the infallible government accuses you of being a terrorist.
5 - And then the same folks turn around the next day and say the government by its nature can't do anything right. WTF? No seriously, WTF?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Waaagh_Gonads wrote:Which part of the government are you in currently KK?
Funnily enough I'm working on human rights issues. So hearing North Korea or China's talking points coming out of the mouths of US Senators and ex-VPs really, really, really hits a nerve.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: 3 - We didn't do this when the country was on the brink of destruction in 1812, nor in 1861, or even in 1941 (though we came close with the Japanese interment). We didn't react this way to the KKK or left-wing terriorists in the 60 or right-wing ones in the 90s but now I hear people seriously saying that right to counsel should not exist if the infallible government accuses you of being a terrorist.
5 - And then the same folks turn around the next day and say the government by its nature can't do anything right. WTF? No seriously, WTF?
There is a long history of use of military tribunals throughout American history. The Civil War and immediately following WWII come to mind off the top of my head. (Nuremburg sound familiar?)
The problem with giving alleged terrorists the same rights as civilians is that going through a civilian court system allows for the dissemination of how we captured said alleged terrorist. Or, would you prefer that we fully disclose to the world exactly what techniques our intelligence personnel are using in the field? This is not about funding terrorist counsel. This is a matter of protocol on what forum we use to dispense justice.
You automatically assume that a military tribunal is comprised of these hawkish judges who are looking for an excuse to execute anyone of middle eastern decent. That is not the case.
The bottom line is there is NO EASY solution to this problem. If you grant complete civilian trials, you have to disclose how the evidence was captured. This is something we probably don't want to do. Military tribunals offer a somewhat different approach. It involves military judges and military appointed counsel. The whole system is setup to insure that sensitive information is not released.
Look, I get it. You don't like Bush and you hate the Right. Great. That does not change the fact that there are people in this world that want to blow up and / or kill Americans. They are not playing by the same rules we are.
As for 5, most of the people advocating for smaller, more limited government say so with the caveat of "with the exception of national security." Again, there are no easy answers for this. But please, give me ONE, just ONE example of ANYTHING the United States Government has ever done effectively and efficiently? Good luck. Anything done by the government has always been done with double the effort and double the cost. (Even our vaunted military - yes, they are effective, but their cost is anything but an efficient use of money).
Personally I don't trust the government to run finances. Which is were my distrust of SS, health care, and other government Socal programs comes from.
I do trust the government on the subject of National Defense. At least until Obama was elected.
You imply that the military tribunals deny rights and are just looking to convict people, yet you claim that Bushes military tribunals freed people who are now running terrorist cells in the Mid-east. which is it?
Also as stated above opening the trials in civil courts exposes the US's intelligence community to having their tactics leaked and there by weakening them.
You imply that the military tribunals deny rights and are just looking to convict people, yet you claim that Bushes military tribunals freed people who are now running terrorist cells in the Mid-east. which is it?
Actually I believe that he was implying they were ineffective, inefficient, costly, secretive, and logically unnecessary.
I do trust the government on the subject of National Defense. At least until Obama was elected.
I'm glad you trusted the government that threw us into a quagmire war over fake WMDs and then refused to listen to it's generals, thus ensuring that the reconstruction and nation-building of that same country would go poorly. Genius.
Also as stated above opening the trials in civil courts exposes the US's intelligence community to having their tactics leaked and there by weakening them.
Not really, such things take months to go to trial, and it's not like we just have a box, a stick, and a carrot that we've been capturing terrorists with. It would be unlikely to do anything but expose interrogation techniques, which have already been exposed anyway.
Green is Best! wrote:
There is a long history of use of military tribunals throughout American history. The Civil War and immediately following WWII come to mind off the top of my head. (Nuremburg sound familiar?)
Yep, military trials for uniformed members of the military of an enemy state we declared war on.
See the difference?
The problem with giving alleged terrorists the same rights as civilians is that going through a civilian court system allows for the dissemination of how we captured said alleged terrorist. Or, would you prefer that we fully disclose to the world exactly what techniques our intelligence personnel are using in the field? This is not about funding terrorist counsel. This is a matter of protocol on what forum we use to dispense justice.
Now already you're being much, much more nuanced than the senators and former VP I've been hearing. First off you're correctly talking about 'civilian rights' rather than rights of US citizens, and talking about protecting intelligence methods, so already we're shifting away from cases like the underwear bomber and now talking about people captured overseas not in the act of terrorism. The problem remains who seperates crazy loners from members of organized groups, who determines who is an enemy combatant in a world without flags and uniforms? It cannot be executive fiat, it has to be a court. And when someone is captured in US soil by the police I'm not sure if there even is a mechanism to hold them outside civilian courts. The US Military has virtually no law enforcement powers within our borders.
You automatically assume that a military tribunal is comprised of these hawkish judges who are looking for an excuse to execute anyone of middle eastern decent. That is not the case.
The bottom line is there is NO EASY solution to this problem. If you grant complete civilian trials, you have to disclose how the evidence was captured. This is something we probably don't want to do. Military tribunals offer a somewhat different approach. It involves military judges and military appointed counsel. The whole system is setup to insure that sensitive information is not released.
Here you're putting words both in my mouth and in the former VP's. The former VP's line has been that terrorists (as determined by the suddenly infallible government) have no rights, regardless of consitutional protections for all persons in the United States.
Look, I get it. You don't like Bush and you hate the Right. Great. That does not change the fact that there are people in this world that want to blow up and / or kill Americans. They are not playing by the same rules we are.
Dude, Bush did a lot of great things the changes in things like US immigration after September 11th do a lot to keep bad guys out of the US, but Chaney is now pushing things even further than Bush did. And do not tell me about people wanting to kill, blow up, hold hostage, shoot, maim and hurt Americans (and Brits and Spanish and Canadians and Japanese and Israelis and anyone else who comes by).
But there have always been people like that, and this is not even the worst we have faced. We managed two world wars, a civil war, a cold war, internal terrorism and a vicious Canadian invasion without suspending civil liberties. We'll manage a few fanatics.
As for 5, most of the people advocating for smaller, more limited government say so with the caveat of "with the exception of national security." Again, there are no easy answers for this. But please, give me ONE, just ONE example of ANYTHING the United States Government has ever done effectively and efficiently? Good luck. Anything done by the government has always been done with double the effort and double the cost. (Even our vaunted military - yes, they are effective, but their cost is anything but an efficient use of money).
Kid_Kyoto wrote:But there have always been people like that, and this is not even the worst we have faced. We managed two world wars, a civil war, a cold war, internal terrorism and a vicious Canadian invasion without suspending civil liberties.
There was the Japanese internment. I recall Lincoln suspending freedom of speech/assembly and due process to help suppress "copperhead" dissent in the north. I think there was some sort of discrimination against Germans in wake of WW1, although I'm not sure about that one. There was the Red Scare during the cold war, which extended to the government in part.
Not that these were necessarily needed in their own times (look at how well-received they generally are now), but there certainly is a history of this sort of thing to look back on.
Regarding the main point, there is a valid distinction to be made between national defense/criminal justice/immigration control and things that could potentially be handled privately (insurance, schools to an extent, etc). That government is inefficient isn't really on the table in situations where there is no alternative.
This doesn't, however, fully account for the dissonance. A lot of the criticism directed at increased prevalence of government programs isn't simply based on efficiency, but on opposition to increasing government power/scope of influence. In that case, it seems strange to condone something as visible as reductions to due process (and when the result of this is a lack of trial by jury, that would seem to stand in contrast to the more populist sentiments of the right as well).
Green is Best! wrote:Good luck. Anything done by the government has always been done with double the effort and double the cost. (Even our vaunted military - yes, they are effective, but their cost is anything but an efficient use of money).
Are you insinuating that the private sector is a paragon of efficiency? Because it really isn't useful to state that the government is inefficient without offering up an example of a large organization which is efficient.
Green is Best! wrote:
There is a long history of use of military tribunals throughout American history. The Civil War and immediately following WWII come to mind off the top of my head. (Nuremburg sound familiar?)
Yep, military trials for uniformed members of the military of an enemy state we declared war on.
While we were prosecuting uniformed members of a foreign military that we were with at war with in WWII, we did not do so after the Civil War. The United States never even declared war against the CSA, as it deemed such an action as a recognition of its sovereignty. The use of tribunal against uniformed and civilian men who sided with the South was there. Its a point of technicality I know, but it reinforces GIB's argument in that tribunals are not only for uniformed members of an opposing nations military.
Kid_Kyoto wrote:But there have always been people like that, and this is not even the worst we have faced. We managed two world wars, a civil war, a cold war, internal terrorism and a vicious Canadian invasion without suspending civil liberties. We'll manage a few fanatics.
Again, I may be a stickler for historical accuracy, but its what I do. We have a long, long history of suspension, or at the very least limitation, of civil liberties during wartime. Lincoln, who was much more of a tyrant then any other president we have had, suspended the writ of habeas corpus, limited freedom of speech, assembly and the press, and of course placed many states, such as Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri under martial law. And that is just the Civil War! I don't that I even need to get into the 20th Century...
Kid_Kyoto wrote:Social Security.
It is neither efficient nor effective
Kid_Kyoto wrote:Medicare.
Same as social security
Kid_Kyoto wrote:Medicaid.
same as medicare
Kid_Kyoto wrote:Canadian Health Care System.
When did this become a product of the US Federal government?
That's hard to establish. What does efficiency mean here? What does effective mean here? Social Security provides many people with an income after retirement, so it clearly has an effect, even one which is desired. In that sense it is certainly effective. Efficiency in this instance is simply the amount of money lost in processing, but what that amount might be I don't know. I would consider anything exceeding a 75% return to be highly efficient.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:Medicare.
Same as social security
Medicare is actually really effective, again, it provides the intended service. Though it isn't very efficient. Whether that's an issue with Medicare, or US healthcare as a whole has been debated for roughly 20 years. There's also the obvious demography issues.
dogma wrote:That's hard to establish. What does efficiency mean here? What does effective mean here? Social Security provides many people with an income after retirement, so it clearly has an effect, even one which is desired. In that sense it is certainly effective. Efficiency in this instance is simply the amount of money lost in processing, but what that amount might be I don't know. I would consider anything exceeding a 75% return to be highly efficient.
More inefficient along the lines of the governments continued "borrowing" from the social security fund, but never putting the money back. I also don't consider $1,500/month to be terribly effective.
dogma wrote:Medicare is actually really effective, though it isn't very efficient. Whether that's an issue with Medicare, or US healthcare as a whole has been debated for roughly 20 years.
I don't see it as being that effective. Not because it denies health care to seniors, but rather because it is so limited. It may sound rather romantic, and idealistic, but I am a strong believer that the people who have worked hard, and earned a comfortable retirement, deserve it. It is one of my more leftist beliefs. It is a Montesquieu-an idea that I sort of picked up and ran with. And we do both agree that it is not efficient.
JEB_Stuart wrote:More inefficient along the lines of the governments continued "borrowing" from the social security fund, but never putting the money back. I also don't consider $1,500/month to be terribly effective.
That's $232 more than the highest US minimum wage.
The efficiency issue that you cite has more to do with a combination of spineless politicians, and an overemphasis on democracy.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
I don't see it as being that effective. Not because it denies health care to seniors, but rather because it is so limited. It may sound rather romantic, and idealistic, but I am a strong believer that the people who have worked hard, and earned a comfortable retirement, deserve it.
Medicare doesn't promise a comfortable retirement, or really comfort of any kind. It promises healthcare, without any consideration of quality or amount. Though obviously more of both is better.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
It is one of my more leftist beliefs. It is a Montesquieu-an idea that I sort of picked up and ran with. And we do both agree that it is not efficient.
We both agree that its inefficient in the sense that it has had its coffers raided over time, which really isn't a matter of efficiency now that I think about it.
JEB_Stuart wrote:]More inefficient along the lines of the governments continued "borrowing" from the social security fund, but never putting the money back. I also don't consider $1,500/month to be terribly effective.
Isn't than an issue of funding, not efficiency or effectiveness? Failing to properly fund a government department then pointing out it doesn't have the money to do the job properly seems a self fulfilling prophecy to me.
I just don't find any traction in the idea that government is always be ineffective. It's based on the idea that a person is essentially selfish, and therefore needs personal profit to be motivated into working hard. Fair enough, the corner store owned by a husband and wife is open all hours and always has fresh fruit. But small businesses emplo a minority of workers, and that's been the case for a long time now*. Larger companies aren't managed by the owners, most shares are held by trusts and by people who have no say beyond a vote at the AGM.
Yet the private sector continues on, despite this seperation of owner and manager. There are sophisticated incentive schemes, and there is the professional reputation of the worker and his own personal pride, so he will work hard for the company despite the profitability of the company directly benefiting him.
In terms of basic profit incentive, government work is little different to the private sector. A look at various privatisation initiatives around the world demonstrate this - there's no magical efficiency to be found in simply becoming private.
*Whether or not small businesses are actually efficient is a whole other debate. On the one hand, there's the profit motive. On the other hand, there's almost every small business I've ever worked with or been served by. At some point economies of scale really overwhelms the profit motive and this is supported in productivity studies.
Either Dogma is just hammered beyond reason, or one of his friends decided to give us a friendly post...and his name, I guess, is Regan...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:Isn't than an issue of funding, not efficiency or effectiveness? Failing to properly fund a government department then pointing out it doesn't have the money to do the job properly seems a self fulfilling prophecy to me.
Well the government doesn't fund social security, the people do. It is taxed, or rather taken from our paycheck, whether we like it or not. I personally would rather keep my money so I can invest and save it as I see fit.
sebster wrote:I just don't find any traction in the idea that government is always be ineffective. It's based on the idea that a person is essentially selfish, and therefore needs personal profit to be motivated into working hard. Fair enough, the corner store owned by a husband and wife is open all hours and always has fresh fruit. But small businesses employ a minority of workers, and that's been the case for a long time now*. Larger companies aren't managed by the owners, most shares are held by trusts and by people who have no say beyond a vote at the AGM.
I agree with you wholeheartedly, with one minor caveat. Democratic governments tend to be inefficient, while more authoritarian ones tend to be more efficient. It will take a Congress 2 years to debate the merit of rebuilding a bridge, another 2 to get it funded (while of course paying for more pet projects to get the votes to get the funding), and another 2 years to build it. A king could order it done in 6 months, or heads start rolling. Obviously a hyperbolic example, but you get the point.
sebster wrote:Yet the private sector continues on, despite this separation of owner and manager. There are sophisticated incentive schemes, and there is the professional reputation of the worker and his own personal pride, so he will work hard for the company despite the profitability of the company directly benefiting him.
Yep, no disagreement so far.
sebster wrote:In terms of basic profit incentive, government work is little different to the private sector. A look at various privatization initiatives around the world demonstrate this - there's no magical efficiency to be found in simply becoming private.
Of course not, any who argue otherwise are kidding themselves. Idealistically though private companies will do it the most efficiently in order to save and make money, whereas the ideal government will only work to minimize cost. Two different types of efficiency, but both efficient in the ideal nonetheless.
sebster wrote:*Whether or not small businesses are actually efficient is a whole other debate. On the one hand, there's the profit motive. On the other hand, there's almost every small business I've ever worked with or been served by. At some point economies of scale really overwhelms the profit motive and this is supported in productivity studies.
Agreed, but it is a good platform for a stump speech
JEB_Stuart wrote:Either Dogma is just hammered beyond reason, or one of his friends decided to give us a friendly post...and his name, I guess, is Regan...
'twas odd, wasn't it? I mean, Regan?
Well the government doesn't fund social security, the people do. It is taxed, or rather taken from our paycheck, whether we like it or not. I personally would rather keep my money so I can invest and save it as I see fit.
Yeah, savings programs that give control of the money to the investor are pretty solid. In Australia you have 9% of your income placed into a superannuation fund. You can invest it yourself or pick a managed fund to invest it for you. You can access the money once you retire, and can invest more along the way if you want (and there's stong tax incentives to do so).
There is the problem of people making poor investments and losing their money, but I'm not sure that's as big a problem as paying money into a social security program that might be bankrupt by the time you come to collect.
I agree with you wholeheartedly, with one minor caveat. Democratic governments tend to be inefficient, while more authoritarian ones tend to be more efficient. It will take a Congress 2 years to debate the merit of rebuilding a bridge, another 2 to get it funded (while of course paying for more pet projects to get the votes to get the funding), and another 2 years to build it. A king could order it done in 6 months, or heads start rolling. Obviously a hyperbolic example, but you get the point.
Except that democratic governments tend to be more accountable, and therefore more resistant to corruption and nepotism. China's government isn't really a model of efficiency.
Of course not, any who argue otherwise are kidding themselves. Idealistically though private companies will do it the most efficiently in order to save and make money, whereas the ideal government will only work to minimize cost. Two different types of efficiency, but both efficient in the ideal nonetheless.
Yeah, we agree.
Agreed, but it is a good platform for a stump speech
If I ever went into politics then 'good for small business' would be my absolute go-to phrase. Doesn't mean small business is actually that wonderful, though
JEB_Stuart wrote:Either Dogma is just hammered beyond reason, or one of his friends decided to give us a friendly post...and his name, I guess, is Regan...
'twas odd, wasn't it? I mean, Regan?
I wasn't entirely sure what was going on. I thought perhaps dogma was imitating (or poking fun at) Ronald Regan or something.
I doubt he would have misspelled Ronald Reagan's name...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:'twas odd, wasn't it? I mean, Regan?
Yeah I always figured Dogma to have a very traditional name (given that his father is a minister) like Thomas, or some total hippie name like Skyler
sebster wrote:Yeah, savings programs that give control of the money to the investor are pretty solid. In Australia you have 9% of your income placed into a superannuation fund. You can invest it yourself or pick a managed fund to invest it for you. You can access the money once you retire, and can invest more along the way if you want (and there's stong tax incentives to do so).
Oh, by the Grace of God, that is an awesome program. I would much rather have our government do it that way! I thought Australian politics was boring!?!? TBH, one of the few things that I supported for President Bush's domestic policy was his push to privatize social security. I was really hoping for an opt out program, or at least a program which would give me greater control over my herd earned wages.
sebster wrote:There is the problem of people making poor investments and losing their money, but I'm not sure that's as big a problem as paying money into a social security program that might be bankrupt by the time you come to collect.
You don't have to tell me that twice...
sebster wrote:Except that democratic governments tend to be more accountable, and therefore more resistant to corruption and nepotism. China's government isn't really a model of efficiency.
Hence why I support the constitutional monarch. It is the ideal blend of both systems. Seriously, you guys had better not ditch the Queen...that would make me very upset...dead serious...
sebster wrote:If I ever went into politics then 'good for small business' would be my absolute go-to phrase. Doesn't mean small business is actually that wonderful, though
The UK government is currently considering enforced privatisation of the pension system. Everyone will be required to open a personal pension plan.
Two problems I see with it are:
1. We've already got serious problems with pension plan mis-selling and the collapse of final salary pension schemes. These are both failures of private enterprise.
2. I've already paid a substantial amount into the mandatory government scheme. If that is going down the tubes, I would like my money back. And I am not the only one.
Ultimately whether you are in a government scheme or a private scheme (or both) you are dependent on the performance of the economy and the stock market.
Green is Best! wrote:Good luck. Anything done by the government has always been done with double the effort and double the cost. (Even our vaunted military - yes, they are effective, but their cost is anything but an efficient use of money).
Are you insinuating that the private sector is a paragon of efficiency? Because it really isn't useful to state that the government is inefficient without offering up an example of a large organization which is efficient.
I am insinuating that the private sector is MORE efficient than the government (UPS, FEDEX vs USPS?).
The problem I have with government spending is that it ALWAYS has always follows a politcal agenda.
When private sector spending, it has an economical agenda.
While both have their faults, things done privately generally tend to get done faster and cheaper than when the government does it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:Social Security.
It is neither efficient nor effective
That's hard to establish. What does efficiency mean here? What does effective mean here? Social Security provides many people with an income after retirement, so it clearly has an effect, even one which is desired. In that sense it is certainly effective. Efficiency in this instance is simply the amount of money lost in processing, but what that amount might be I don't know. I would consider anything exceeding a 75% return to be highly efficient.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:Medicare.
Same as social security
Medicare is actually really effective, again, it provides the intended service. Though it isn't very efficient. Whether that's an issue with Medicare, or US healthcare as a whole has been debated for roughly 20 years. There's also the obvious demography issues.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:Medicaid.
same as medicare
As above.
And all three are going bankrupt. This whole healthcare reform is nothing more than a politcal coverup to hide the fiscal insolvency of these organizations. That is why this new plan is rolling them up into a new, bigger government entity. It is the same thing FDR did. It is not solving any problems, it is just delaying problems for another generation to handle.
Green is Best! wrote:
I am insinuating that the private sector is MORE efficient than the government (UPS, FEDEX vs USPS?).
British Rail was more effective and actually cheaper than the useless private run companies we have now.
The problem I have with government spending is that it ALWAYS has always follows a politcal agenda.
When private sector spending, it has an economical agenda.
.You'll find a lot of private sector spending is also directed at/towards a political agenda as well, be it "evil" Fox News or the "Global warming hoax" perpetuated by the homogeneous unimind that the "liberal media" is.
Green is Best! wrote:
I am insinuating that the private sector is MORE efficient than the government (UPS, FEDEX vs USPS?).
Why would a corporation driven by the motivation to take input and create profit from it be better at base value than a state created service that has no profit to make?
When the tories privatised the water companies in England, it created monopolies with atrocious service and massively increased the price we pay for water to our homes. The amount of water restrictions like hosepipe bans increased by 70% in the area I was living (South West Water) and they more than doubled the water costs citing that due to Cornwall having so much coastline, it was the most costly area in the UK to support...
Scotland didn't privatise their water, they have masses of coastline and a widely scattered population, yet their rates remain significantly lower than the private firms (monopolies).
Public sector fails when governments fail to provide adequate support (ie fail in their obligation to the electorate).
Green is Best! wrote:
I am insinuating that the private sector is MORE efficient than the government (UPS, FEDEX vs USPS?).
Why would a corporation driven by the motivation to take input and create profit from it be better at base value than a state created service that has no profit to make?
When the tories privatised the water companies in England, it created monopolies with atrocious service and massively increased the price we pay for water to our homes. The amount of water restrictions like hosepipe bans increased by 70% in the area I was living (South West Water) and they more than doubled the water costs citing that due to Cornwall having so much coastline, it was the most costly area in the UK to support...
Scotland didn't privatise their water, they have masses of coastline and a widely scattered population, yet their rates remain significantly lower than the private firms (monopolies).
Public sector fails when governments fail to provide adequate support (ie fail in their obligation to the electorate).
Well, it may very well be that government run organizations are done better in England. Here in America they are mired in beuracracy and inefficiency. Government agencies do not create wealth. They provide services at taxpayer expense. What would happen government employed 100% of the population? What would get done?
I do not believe that the government needs to provide everything for me. I believe that I should work and provide for myself.
I am not saying zero government. I am saying smaller, limited government.
For example, the Department of Energy was created by Jimmy Carter in the late 1970's to remove America's dependency on oil (since he believed the world's oil supply would be gone by the 1990s). It is now a government agency that employs hundreds of thousands at a cost of billions of dollars each year. But, what do they do? That is just one example of creep that is rampant in our government.
I am obviously a minority opinion on this site, but that is ok. Everyone is welcome to their beliefs. The difference is, your belief in big government requires the government to take MORE money from me to pay for your beliefs. I think I am quite capable of spending my money as I see fit. Apparently, you think Uncle Sam can do it better.
Kilkrazy wrote:UPS does not provide universal service.
Part of the point of the Post Office is to ensure that everyone, wherever they live, has equal access to basic communications.
UPS is more efficient on the routes it serves, but it is less effective in terms of universal service.
Some of that is the government limits what and where UPS/FedEx can deliver. They are not allowed to diliver to PO Boxes, and they are not allowed to deliver mail.
I cannot say the will, but at the same time you cannot say they won't.
While one company might not delivery it I could see several smaller companies working smaller areas, and then using the larger "UPS/FedEx's" to delivery to areas outside of their coverage zones.
Not saying it would be cheaper, but the USPS can't deliver a letter from New York to LA for only .44. Theres a reason they are losing money.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Yeah I always figured Dogma to have a very traditional name (given that his father is a minister) like Thomas, or some total hippie name like Skyler
I think he's Skynet.
Oh, by the Grace of God, that is an awesome program. I would much rather have our government do it that way! I thought Australian politics was boring!?!? TBH, one of the few things that I supported for President Bush's domestic policy was his push to privatize social security. I was really hoping for an opt out program, or at least a program which would give me greater control over my herd earned wages.
Yeah, that was one of Bush's best policies.
And yeah, Australian politics are boring. No-one here has ever been admitted for treatment for an addiction to a Facebook game. Check out the thread I just started.
]Hence why I support the constitutional monarch. It is the ideal blend of both systems. Seriously, you guys had better not ditch the Queen...that would make me very upset...dead serious...
I met a Tibetan guy on the bus ride out of Sikkim, he spent half the trip telling me how he was so happy we still had a monarchy, and that you should respect traditions. He was such a lovely fellow and it made him happy, so I decided to vote to keep the monarchy whenever the referendum comes up again. If it wasn't for him I'd totally vote for it for you, though.
Dude, that is election gold you are makin!
Support small business, the engine room of our economies. Help working families. Freedom. Have pride in our great nation. Twirling, twirling towards freedom.
jbunny wrote:I cannot say the will, but at the same time you cannot say they won't.
While one company might not delivery it I could see several smaller companies working smaller areas, and then using the larger "UPS/FedEx's" to delivery to areas outside of their coverage zones.
Not saying it would be cheaper, but the USPS can't deliver a letter from New York to LA for only .44. Theres a reason they are losing money.
From historical sources, there has never been a private delivery service which will deliver a letter anywhere in the country for the same price.
For obvious reasons as you said, profit etc.
This doesn't matter if you feel social cohesion is not helped by communications or else that it is an unimportant factor in society.
Green is Best! wrote:Well, it may very well be that government run organizations are done better in England. Here in America they are mired in beuracracy and inefficiency. Government agencies do not create wealth. They provide services at taxpayer expense. What would happen government employed 100% of the population? What would get done?
I do not believe that the government needs to provide everything for me. I believe that I should work and provide for myself.
I am not saying zero government. I am saying smaller, limited government.
Smaller government sounds good, except whenever we talk about gutting a local program or facility which provides jobs and useful services to a given place. Then everyone near it wants to keep it.
Clearly not all services can or should be run on the basis of profit. Lots of essential services either won’t happen if one tries to make them profitable, or encounter significant safety issues. Stuff we have socialized in the US include:
The armed forces
The police
The fire departments
The roads and highway system
The postal service
Libraries
We could theoretically privatize any or all of these, but we get into some scary issues with conflicts of interest for a private, profit-based entity vs. the public good. One of the central elements right now of the healthcare debate is whether medical services really should be considered more in the light of the stuff above. Should profit be a primary factor underlying discussions of what medical procedures will be covered, for example?
Regarding the efficiency question, I work in insurance, and I know from experience that there is a great deal of waste, additional work, and inefficiency directly due to the competitive profit-based insurance model. One of the obvious issues is that each insurance company has its own billing and coverage procedures which vary significantly from other companies. Medical billing is very much complicated by the fact that every doctor’s office or hospital must keep track of innumerable different insurance companies’ protocols. Theoretically, if a doctor’s office only needed to bill a single place, it would streamline billing, claims, and appeal procedures enormously. That’s before we even get into issues of errors and appeals in the claims process.
Green is Best! wrote:For example, the Department of Energy was created by Jimmy Carter in the late 1970's to remove America's dependency on oil (since he believed the world's oil supply would be gone by the 1990s). It is now a government agency that employs hundreds of thousands at a cost of billions of dollars each year. But, what do they do?
That's not all they were created to do. They also consolidated a bunch of already existing entities into a single department, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Federal Energy Administration, the Energy Research and Development Administration, and the Federal Power Commission.
Kilkrazy wrote:From historical sources, there has never been a private delivery service which will deliver a letter anywhere in the country for the same price.
For obvious reasons as you said, profit etc.
This doesn't matter if you feel social cohesion is not helped by communications or else that it is an unimportant factor in society.
Why is it necessary for communication to be equally costly no matter how far you are trying to communicate?
Transportation's important. I don't think it's suffering because it costs me more to drive to San Diego than Minneapolis. If the cost for travelling anywhere was the same, I couldn't afford to make trips to the store, as I'd be paying for half a trip to Maine.
sebster wrote:Yeah, that was one of Bush's best policies.
It really was a grand idea. Its to bad that both parties were so strongly against it.
sebster wrote:And yeah, Australian politics are boring. No-one here has ever been admitted for treatment for an addiction to a Facebook game. Check out the thread I just started.
Well, despite my admiration for the man, Kevin Rudd is rather boring. Now Menzies, he was entertaining!
sebster wrote:I met a Tibetan guy on the bus ride out of Sikkim, he spent half the trip telling me how he was so happy we still had a monarchy, and that you should respect traditions. He was such a lovely fellow and it made him happy, so I decided to vote to keep the monarchy whenever the referendum comes up again. If it wasn't for him I'd totally vote for it for you, though.
See, that is something special we share!
sebster wrote:Support small business, the engine room of our economies. Help working families. Freedom. Have pride in our great nation. Twirling, twirling towards freedom.
It really was a grand idea. Its to bad that both parties were so strongly against it.
In fairness it's probably a good thing it didn't work out considering the stock market crash that would have followed three years after it's inception.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Granted, but that couldn't have been foreseen at that time. I still think it was a great idea, and would very much like to see it brought out again.
I would like the idea if it was coupled with better market regulation. The American 10 year boom/bust cycle isn't really good for maintaining long term growth in a retirement portfolio.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Granted, but that couldn't have been foreseen at that time. I still think it was a great idea, and would very much like to see it brought out again.
While i did not predict the stock market crash, I did predict the housing market bubble bursting. That played a mojor factor in the market crash.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Granted, but that couldn't have been foreseen at that time. I still think it was a great idea, and would very much like to see it brought out again.
While i did not predict the stock market crash, I did predict the housing market bubble bursting. That played a mojor factor in the market crash.
Isn't that like predicting a car is going to lose a wheel, but that it's not going to hit anything?
Green is Best! wrote:
I am insinuating that the private sector is MORE efficient than the government (UPS, FEDEX vs USPS?).
The problem I have with government spending is that it ALWAYS has always follows a politcal agenda.
When private sector spending, it has an economical agenda.
No, it follows a political agenda. Most of the time that leads to positive financial rewards, but if you really think that corporate politics don't exist, then there is no point in continuing this conversation.
Green is Best! wrote:
While both have their faults, things done privately generally tend to get done faster and cheaper than when the government does it.
Not in my experience. Useful statistics in this area are difficult to come by.
Green is Best! wrote:
And all three are going bankrupt.
I noted that indirectly.
Green is Best! wrote:
This whole healthcare reform is nothing more than a politcal coverup to hide the fiscal insolvency of these organizations. That is why this new plan is rolling them up into a new, bigger government entity. It is the same thing FDR did. It is not solving any problems, it is just delaying problems for another generation to handle.
That's what solving problems entails. I find it hilarious how wonderfully idealistic most people become when they discuss permanence.
Nurglitch wrote:Person 1: Overgeneralization A is true!
Person 2: It obviously isn't, overgeneralization B is what is true!
Person 3: Bicycles are a vegetable!
Person 4: *incoherent short spam messages on two separate topics within 90 seconds of eachother*
JEB_Stuart wrote:Either Dogma is just hammered beyond reason, or one of his friends decided to give us a friendly post...and his name, I guess, is Regan...
Both. Left myself logged in on a publicly accessible computer. I didn't type that statement, but is something that I yell occasionally: Regan = Reagan.
sebster wrote:
'twas odd, wasn't it? I mean, Regan?
I always picture him as Ronald McDonald.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Yeah I always figured Dogma to have a very traditional name (given that his father is a minister) like Thomas, or some total hippie name like Skyler
The first is more accurate. I have the same name as my father, and a numeric title. My hippie name is Moonbreeze.
sebster wrote:
I think he's Skynet.
My recently made quadruple display system agrees with this idea.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Granted, but that couldn't have been foreseen at that time. I still think it was a great idea, and would very much like to see it brought out again.
While i did not predict the stock market crash, I did predict the housing market bubble bursting. That played a mojor factor in the market crash.
Isn't that like predicting a car is going to lose a wheel, but that it's not going to hit anything?
JEB_Stuart wrote:Granted, but that couldn't have been foreseen at that time. I still think it was a great idea, and would very much like to see it brought out again.
While i did not predict the stock market crash, I did predict the housing market bubble bursting. That played a mojor factor in the market crash.
Isn't that like predicting a car is going to lose a wheel, but that it's not going to hit anything?
I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
It's like insinuating that what you said was similar to saying that you expected a plane to lose a wing, but not fall down.
You see I am not a finance guy. When it comes to the stock market I am an average guy. In fact I got a B- in Finance in college, but I saw the housing bubble bursting a few years before it happened. i just did not realize the effect it would have on the economy as a whole.
ShumaGorath wrote:Valentines day is a drinking holiday for a large proportion of dakka.
Who said I needed a special day to drink?
This doesnt surprise me at all. BTW My dad just tried some.....er...uh... special label Jack Daniels?(I dont know what it was called now) and said it was fantastic. For some reason, I thought of your drunken self
jbunny wrote:You see I am not a finance guy. When it comes to the stock market I am an average guy. In fact I got a B- in Finance in college, but I saw the housing bubble bursting a few years before it happened. i just did not realize the effect it would have on the economy as a whole.
Thats like saying a boat would hit a rock and fill with water, but wouldn't sink.
Kilkrazy wrote:From historical sources, there has never been a private delivery service which will deliver a letter anywhere in the country for the same price.
For obvious reasons as you said, profit etc.
This doesn't matter if you feel social cohesion is not helped by communications or else that it is an unimportant factor in society.
Why is it necessary for communication to be equally costly no matter how far you are trying to communicate?
...
As I said, if you think social cohesion is important and depends on communication, then it needs to be universally available at the same price.
(There is also an element of rational accounting, since it would not make always sense to price letters according to how far they travel.)
Kilkrazy wrote:As I said, if you think social cohesion is important and depends on communication, then it needs to be universally available at the same price.
And I'm saying it doesn't. There's no reason for the best form of communication to be one where talking to anyone anywhere costs the exact same amount as talking to anyone else. If there's no economic reason for different rates then no one's arguing they should be imposed arbitrarily, but that it's necessary for the government to control the postal system so that they can make what would otherwise be rates differing on account of distance into a flat rate for anywhere just seems unfounded.
Isn't transportation important to social cohesion? Don't people need to be able to go from one place to another in person as much as they need to contact someone far away (by mail, at least)? There is nonetheless no movement in place to make every trip cost the same, no matter where you are going. It would be extremely inefficient to do so.
Kilkrazy wrote:As I said, if you think social cohesion is important and depends on communication, then it needs to be universally available at the same price.
And I'm saying it doesn't. There's no reason for the best form of communication to be one where talking to anyone anywhere costs the exact same amount as talking to anyone else. If there's no economic reason for different rates then no one's arguing they should be imposed arbitrarily, but that it's necessary for the government to control the postal system so that they can make what would otherwise be rates differing on account of distance into a flat rate for anywhere just seems unfounded.
Isn't transportation important to social cohesion? Don't people need to be able to go from one place to another in person as much as they need to contact someone far away (by mail, at least)? There is nonetheless no movement in place to make every trip cost the same, no matter where you are going. It would be extremely inefficient to do so.
Actually you'll find a lot of countries subsidise certain classes of rail tickets, ferries and bridges to remote islands, that kind of thing, with the objective of at least reducing variable transport costs, though they aren't possible to eliminate completely.
You're American, so most likely you don't think social cohesion is as important as Europeans do. Americans have a more individualistic social view.
Kilkrazy wrote:As I said, if you think social cohesion is important and depends on communication, then it needs to be universally available at the same price.
And I'm saying it doesn't. There's no reason for the best form of communication to be one where talking to anyone anywhere costs the exact same amount as talking to anyone else. If there's no economic reason for different rates then no one's arguing they should be imposed arbitrarily, but that it's necessary for the government to control the postal system so that they can make what would otherwise be rates differing on account of distance into a flat rate for anywhere just seems unfounded.
Isn't transportation important to social cohesion? Don't people need to be able to go from one place to another in person as much as they need to contact someone far away (by mail, at least)? There is nonetheless no movement in place to make every trip cost the same, no matter where you are going. It would be extremely inefficient to do so.
Actually you'll find a lot of countries subsidise certain classes of rail tickets, ferries and bridges to remote islands, that kind of thing, with the objective of at least reducing variable transport costs, though they aren't possible to eliminate completely.
You're American, so most likely you don't think social cohesion is as important as Europeans do. Americans have a more individualistic social view.
No you have a point KK. The greatest public/private works of the US up to WWII was done for such-the Great Intercontinental Railroad. It was designed specificaly to connect the West with the East, the view being that the link was needed to keep separation from occurring (obivously this was post Civil War). The Russians did the same, but less successfully (and its bankrupting cost being a driver of the later 1017 revolution).
Kilkrazy wrote:Actually you'll find a lot of countries subsidise certain classes of rail tickets, ferries and bridges to remote islands, that kind of thing, with the objective of at least reducing variable transport costs, though they aren't possible to eliminate completely.
No, they could be eliminated completely. They aren't because it would extraordinarily inefficient to do so. I know about the "bridges to nowhere". They're largely pork-barrel projects, instigated by those who have bought cheap land and are looking to raise its value.
You're American, so most likely you don't think social cohesion is as important as Europeans do. Americans have a more individualistic social view.
How does artificial flattening of rates cause a greater amount of "social cohesion" at all? You increase the communicative ability between people who are far away while decreasing it between people who are nearer to each other. That leads to an artificially skewed communication structure. Who do I need to be "cohesive" with? People in my community are here, in my community. Most of my family lives somewhat close to me, as do my friends. If I want to send letters to them, my ability to do so is reduced by this scheme. Do I send letters to the the nation at large? Of course not, that's silly. I'm not going to mail letters to random people in Alabama just so we can be more "cohesive" as a nation. The people who benefit from this are primarily large businesses, who have far more need to send things cross-country than people sending things socially, with a small number of people living in obscure locations used as the justification. The people who lose out are those sending letters a shorter distance, to people they are more likely to know outside of work.
This isn't to say anything of tax paid subsidies to postal networks; these most likely would be conducive to communication in the nation (at the expense of other things, of course) but you could just as easily cut rates across the board, instead of cut rates by a larger amount for those sending things long distances.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Well, despite my admiration for the man, Kevin Rudd is rather boring. Now Menzies, he was entertaining!
Kevin Rudd is boring, and he's also a bit of a nob. You might like the opposition leader, Abbot, he's a real old school conservative.
One of the great tragedies of Australian politics is that we actually had guys called Abbot and Costello in the same party, both in leadership roles, but we never managed to get them as leader and deputy. But that's just about everything that's wrong with Australian politics.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
It really was a grand idea. Its to bad that both parties were so strongly against it.
In fairness it's probably a good thing it didn't work out considering the stock market crash that would have followed three years after it's inception.
If it was to be done right, it would have to be done slowly, over a decade or two.
Thing is, though, if it's done right it actually stabilises the market. By its nature, and probably also by law, retirement savings are focussed towards less risky, productive investments. You see money move into blue chip industrials, and not into hedge funds and other speculative investments.
There's also a steady supply of money constantly coming into the market regardless of stock performance, so recovery from a crash tends to be much quicker.
Kilkrazy wrote:Actually you'll find a lot of countries subsidise certain classes of rail tickets, ferries and bridges to remote islands, that kind of thing, with the objective of at least reducing variable transport costs, though they aren't possible to eliminate completely.
No, they could be eliminated completely. They aren't because it would extraordinarily inefficient to do so. I know about the "bridges to nowhere". They're largely pork-barrel projects, instigated by those who have bought cheap land and are looking to raise its value.
You're American, so most likely you don't think social cohesion is as important as Europeans do. Americans have a more individualistic social view.
How does artificial flattening of rates cause a greater amount of "social cohesion" at all? You increase the communicative ability between people who are far away while decreasing it between people who are nearer to each other. That leads to an artificially skewed communication structure. Who do I need to be "cohesive" with? People in my community are here, in my community. Most of my family lives somewhat close to me, as do my friends. If I want to send letters to them, my ability to do so is reduced by this scheme. Do I send letters to the the nation at large? Of course not, that's silly. I'm not going to mail letters to random people in Alabama just so we can be more "cohesive" as a nation. The people who benefit from this are primarily large businesses, who have far more need to send things cross-country than people sending things socially, with a small number of people living in obscure locations used as the justification. The people who lose out are those sending letters a shorter distance, to people they are more likely to know outside of work.
This isn't to say anything of tax paid subsidies to postal networks; these most likely would be conducive to communication in the nation (at the expense of other things, of course) but you could just as easily cut rates across the board, instead of cut rates by a larger amount for those sending things long distances.
You are saying exactly what I would have predicted based on your social background as an American.
You increase the communicative ability between people who are far away while decreasing it between people who are nearer to each other. That leads to an artificially skewed communication structure.
I fail to understand how a national mail system somehow skews my ability to communicate more locally.
The people who benefit from this are primarily large businesses, who have far more need to send things cross-country than people sending things socially, with a small number of people living in obscure locations used as the justification.
One would think that given the demographic motivation over time a national communications system like that would greatly enable families to communicate, while at the same time providing businesses a reliable, regulated, and fair method of communication. We are no longer a nation of letter writers, in the 1900's it was a vital line. I for one live a fair distance from all of my relatives, many are out of state, a few aren't even connected to this continent. I communicate with other schools regularly half the country away, and were it not for the internet I would likely do so with an incredible amount of regularity.
ShumaGorath wrote:I fail to understand how a national mail system somehow skews my ability to communicate more locally.
If the national system prices communication between shorter distances higher than it would otherwise be, so that it can price communication between longer distances at lower amounts, then it impedes short distance for greater long distance communication.
If you use taxes to subsidize long distance communication then this wouldn't occur, but in that case I see little reason to subsidize long distance communication in preference to shorter distanced communication if you do use taxes to do so.
One would think that given the demographic motivation over time a national communications system like that would greatly enable families to communicate, while at the same time providing businesses a reliable, regulated, and fair method of communication. We are no longer a nation of letter writers, in the 1900's it was a vital line. I for one live a fair distance from all of my relatives, many are out of state, a few aren't even connected to this continent. I communicate with other schools regularly half the country away, and were it not for the internet I would likely do so with an incredible amount of regularity.
That's only relevant insofar as it stands in contrast to communication over shorter distances. I can't say I know too much about who you keep in contact with personally, though.
If the national system prices communication between shorter distances higher than it would otherwise be, so that it can price communication between longer distances at lower amounts, then it impedes short distance for greater long distance communication.
But when you consider the significantly greater priority and commonality of long distance communication as enabled via a post system the value for the currency used is seemingly greater. Short distance mail isn't particularly important or necessary, the entire point of a postal system is to enable long range communication cheaply. Communicating short distances is already cheap, and I would assume that if you could find the average distance a letter travels, it would be considerably farther than what is considered "local". I for one have never in my life sent a letter to something within 30 miles of the location of sending.
That's only relevant insofar as it stands in contrast to communication over shorter distances.
Well, all my communication done on a local scale (discounting the internet, as that actually invalidates this entire conversation anyway) is done via face to face contact or over the phone. I am pragmatic though, so primarily face to face. I could, but never would write a letter "locally" as it is all but pointless to do so. By contrast I have found many an occasion, primarily holidays and business contacts for which I needed to send letters long distance. The job of the mail isn't, and never has been to enable short range communication. It's to enable the cheap and universal communication a nation requires in order to function on a large scale across significant distances. One could argue that the short range costs are supplanted by the long, but given stamp prices that's not particularly true. Regardless, this is a rights issue and not a business one, it's the governments duty to enable it's citizens to communicate on a fair and even ground free of bias. The postal service does this wonderfully.
ShumaGorath wrote:But when you consider the significantly greater priority and commonality of long distance communication as enabled via a post system the value for the currency used is seemingly greater. Short distance mail isn't particularly important or necessary, the entire point of a postal system is to enable long range communication cheaply. Communicating short distances is already cheap, and I would assume that if you could find the average distance a letter travels, it would be considerably farther than what is considered "local". I for one have never in my life sent a letter to something within 30 miles of the location of sending.
Well, all my communication done on a local scale (discounting the internet, as that actually invalidates this entire conversation anyway) is done via face to face contact or over the phone. I am pragmatic though, so primarily face to face. I could, but never would write a letter "locally" as it is all but pointless to do so. By contrast I have found many an occasion, primarily holidays and business contacts for which I needed to send letters long distance. The job of the mail isn't, and never has been to enable short range communication. It's to enable the cheap and universal communication a nation requires in order to function on a large scale across significant distances. One could argue that the short range costs are supplanted by the long, but given stamp prices that's not particularly true. Regardless, this is a rights issue and not a business one, it's the governments duty to enable it's citizens to communicate on a fair and even ground free of bias. The postal service does this wonderfully.
By "local" I am referring to any distance in which price is increased under the price flattening plan; the increase in rates for local sendings must equal the decrease in rates for long distance sending.
I don't see why people have a "right" to be able to send things any distance they wish and be charged the same for doing so, at least for communication between private individuals. And calling a pricing structure in which costs to the person sending the message are equal to the costs of actually distributing that message to recipient "biased" is just getting silly.
By "local" I am referring to any distance in which price is increased under the price flattening plan; the increase in rates for local sendings must equal the decrease in rates for long distance sending.
Perhaps you would like to specify a time frame then? The advent of rail, road, and air travel significantly reduced in each case the cost of long distance communication. Something that would have been seemingly inconceivable given a standard pricing structure in the 1920's became quite standard specifically due to the one price system. It meant that rather than focus on cost benefit, an infrastructure that was publicly funded could take hold and vastly outstrip the capabilities of all comparable services of the day. You are looking at the postal service through the lens of modern capability, where no one writes any more, packages are primarily airmailed via international businesses that own their own airports, and where a telecommunications infrastructure has all but relegated the concept of mail to formal cards and small business documents. During the postal systems hayday it would have been prohibitively expensive to mail cross country given a distance based pricing pricing structure, and that coast to coast cohesion between civilians, the military, and businesses is one reason why the American economy managed to grow and exploit natural resources so quickly. National cohesion is more important than a sensible business practice in a mailing department. As an alternative, why exactly is it better to treat post with a distance based pricing structure? Given that the concept of subsidization is inherently part of the conversation, always has been, and always will be, what is the benefit of charging greater prices for longer distances when that would logically damage the populations ability to communicate and do business at those distances (we're a pretty big country).
I don't see why people have a "right" to be able to send things any distance they wish and be charged the same for doing so, at least for communication between private individuals.
The "right" to clean water free of charge doesn't logically exist either. Not everything is about the money, and a government exists to provide for the ease of it's citizens, not be cheap or profitable.
And calling a pricing structure in which costs to the person sending the message are equal to the costs of actually distributing that message to recipient "biased" is just getting silly.
Not really, though I was referring more to the posts attitude towards social class and income levels. Having long distance communication be affordable to the lowest levels of society (something not really possible up until the invention of the phone and airliner) is unbiased. When something is unaffordable to a segment of the population it is biased towards a higher income segment.
ShumaGorath wrote:Perhaps you would like to specify a time frame then? The advent of rail, road, and air travel significantly reduced in each case the cost of long distance communication. Something that would have been seemingly inconceivable given a standard pricing structure in the 1920's became quite standard specifically due to the one price system. It meant that rather than focus on cost benefit, an infrastructure that was publicly funded could take hold and vastly outstrip the capabilities of all comparable services of the day. You are looking at the postal service through the lens of modern capability, where no one writes any more, packages are primarily airmailed via international businesses that own their own airports, and where a telecommunications infrastructure has all but relegated the concept of mail to formal cards and small business documents. During the postal systems hayday it would have been prohibitively expensive to mail cross country given a distance based pricing pricing structure, and that coast to coast cohesion between civilians, the military, and businesses is one reason why the American economy managed to grow and exploit natural resources so quickly. National cohesion is more important than a sensible business practice in a mailing department.
I was talking about modern times primarily, as this is a discussion about the necessity of a national mail system in modern times, specifically in regards to being able to level pricing.
As an alternative, why exactly is it better to treat post with a distance based pricing structure? Given that the concept of subsidization is inherently part of the conversation, always has been, and always will be, what is the benefit of charging greater prices for longer distances when that would logically damage the populations ability to communicate and do business at those distances (we're a pretty big country).
If you're talking about reasons to subsidize a mail system, you're talking about something that I'm not. It hasn't "always been" part of the conversation, except in my specific exclusion of it. Subsidization is neither necessary to level prices, nor is a leveling of prices necessary for subsidization.
The "right" to clean water free of charge doesn't logically exist either. Not everything is about the money, and a government exists to provide for the ease of it's citizens, not be cheap or profitable.
Not really, though I was referring more to the posts attitude towards social class and income levels. Having long distance communication be affordable to the lowest levels of society (something not really possible up until the invention of the phone and airliner) is unbiased. When something is unaffordable to a segment of the population it is biased towards a higher income segment.
I don't have much to say to these, as they tie back into subsidization. I'm only talking about a rather specific pricing structure.
I was talking about modern times primarily, as this is a discussion about the necessity of a national mail system in modern times, specifically in regards to being able to level pricing.
Thats what I get for entering in late. Why are you having that discussion at all?
If you're talking about reasons to subsidize a mail system, you're talking about something that I'm not. It hasn't "always been" part of the conversation, except in my specific exclusion of it. Subsidization is neither necessary to level prices, nor is a leveling of prices necessary for subsidization.
If you're discussion a sea to shining sea true mail system then you are. The U.S. has never had a post system with that capability that was not in some way subsidized until the very recent international air mail conglomerates came into being. In modern times a leveling of prices does not require subsidization thanks to the advent of air travel, that's notable by simply viewing UPS or fedex, however those are both significantly more costly than standard post, and significantly more vulnerable to economic woes and the unaccountability inherent to private business. A non level pricing scheme would be possible as an alternative, but the metrics driving a national post system make the idea fairly problematic for any time period.
I don't have much to say to these, as they tie back into subsidization. I'm only talking about a rather specific pricing structure.
Are you talking about a specific price structure within an instance of reality, or simply the ethereal concept of pricing per difficulty of item sent? I would note that the vast majority of products sold in the vast majority of regions in the world are done so independent of distance. A television in Maine and California cost the same, despite a thousand miles of travel for the big box that television sits in. Not all businesses require such models for pricing, and while delivery companies market their pricing as such, it's not truly a requirement and could well be a detriment should competition with flat rates appear (as is the case now, most people send letter via post over fedex despite speed and reliability due to convenience and cost).
ShumaGorath wrote:Are you talking about a specific price structure within an instance of reality, or simply the ethereal concept of pricing per difficulty of item sent?
The "ethereal concept", mostly.
Kilkrazy said that one of the reasons we needed the USPS was to level prices based on distance, I disagreed with that specific rationale.
ShumaGorath wrote:I fail to understand how a national mail system somehow skews my ability to communicate more locally.
If the national system prices communication between shorter distances higher than it would otherwise be, so that it can price communication between longer distances at lower amounts, then it impedes short distance for greater long distance communication.
If you use taxes to subsidize long distance communication then this wouldn't occur, but in that case I see little reason to subsidize long distance communication in preference to shorter distanced communication if you do use taxes to do so.
.
It's not tax. The Post Office uses flat pricing to charge customers in cities a bit more, so it can charge customers in rural areas a lot less.
Imagine people in London send each other 100,000 letters a day priced 30p each and 36 letters a day to people in Stornoway.
If the letter posted to Stornoway has a delivery cost of £10, the total cost of deliveries is £360, divided by 100,000 is an overcharge in the cost of the London stamps of 0.36p each to pay for the deliveries to Stornoway.
I made up the figures for the sake of the illustration.
Does this really matter that much anymore? Letter writing is a long dead art form, much to my chagrin. I realize you send more then letters through the mail, but I only ever used the USPS to mail letters, and a private company for packages. I find them to be more reliable and much quicker. TBH though, I have always been a fan of the USPS.
Kid_Kyoto wrote:The same big government that conservatives don't trust to run health care, Social Security, schools or anything else magically becomes infallible when it comes to torturing terrorists and holding them without trial. So the same people who can't do anything right can tell who is a terrorist wtih 100% accuracy using their detect evil powers.
Because they're a bunch of hypocrites? Because they're benevolent dictators, and we just let them run our lives?
It's part of the political process. "The government is doing everything wrong! Elect me, and I'll fix it!"
I think the issue of detainees is a bad one, and one without a good answer. I don't like the Bush administration policies. However, putting them on Riker's Island and trying them in NY court probably isn't the best answer either. But, I'd take the NY trial over the "we'll detainee you as long as we like" mindset.
ShumaGorath wrote:Are you talking about a specific price structure within an instance of reality, or simply the ethereal concept of pricing per difficulty of item sent?
The "ethereal concept", mostly.
Kilkrazy said that one of the reasons we needed the USPS was to level prices based on distance, I disagreed with that specific rationale.
My idea is that if a government wants to maintain social cohesion, which at some level it always does, there have to be ways of connecting distant parts of the nation together.
Flat priced postal services are an example of this.
I can't see why a profit-motivated company like Fedex would charge on the same model unless it was compelled to by the government or perhaps subsidised to do so.
In the UK we have competition between various private companies for the delivery of parcels and letters. They always pick the most profitable routes.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Does this really matter that much anymore? Letter writing is a long dead art form, much to my chagrin. I realize you send more then letters through the mail, but I only ever used the USPS to mail letters, and a private company for packages. I find them to be more reliable and much quicker. TBH though, I have always been a fan of the USPS.
Yeah, it's kind of pointless. That every mail system is aided heavily by public infrastructure is pretty obvious, so a contrast between mailing systems isn't necessarily a great contrast between public and private enterprises to begin with.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:My idea is that if a government wants to maintain social cohesion, which at some level it always does, there have to be ways of connecting distant parts of the nation together.
Flat priced postal services are an example of this.
I think the imposition on net communication imposed by deadweight loss is worse for social cohesion than the gain from long distance sending. To what degree communication still occurs by mail, anyways.
I never said the USPS was of poor quality, or even of poor efficiency. Just that it wasn't lent any by a specific pricing policy.
Let's roll all of this back for a minute, and look at the broader issue. There are some things in which the government is far more efficient than a private corporation would be. Highways, for example. There are also plenty of examples of government running things very poorly (the Yugo!). From this we can tell that whether something is done privately or by the government alone isn't an indicator of efficiency. This means that if we are to look at the likely efficiency of a government (or private) program, we need to consider how it relates to prior programs that have been successful or unsuccessful, look for the underlying cause of efficiency or inefficiency in either the program or its competitors, and of course agree on the desirability of different goals and how much of a liability certain costs are in comparison. If expansion of government power is deemed a bad thing, then it should probably be considered separately from efficiency; Mussolini made the trains run on time, Hitler and Stalin had powerful armies at their disposal, and so on and so forth. Any thoughts so far?
Governments are usually considered to be good for doing things which are not done well by free markets.
Examples: natural monopolies, the law, armed forces.
Management education says that objectives and methods should be thought about in terms of efficiency and effectiveness.
Effectiveness is basically idea of whether what you want to do is a good thing or not. Efficiency is how well you do it. It doesn't take much thought to see that efficiency in pursuit of an ineffective objective is a bad thing.
The objectives of rich people and businesses are not always congruent with the objectives of society as a whole.
