Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

jbunny wrote:

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.

Person 1: Overgeneralization A is true!
Person 2: It obviously isn't, overgeneralization B is what is true!
Person 3: Bicycles are a vegetable!

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.

ShumaGorath wrote:

jbunny wrote:

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.

jbunny wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

jbunny wrote:

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.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

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.

That's like saying if there was a guy and he was on fire he wouldn't be burned even though he's on fire.

Orkeosaurus wrote:That's like saying if there was a guy and he was on fire he wouldn't be burned even though he's on fire.

SIR! That is an ANALOGY! Those are MY thing.

That's like saying you can't play beach volleyball until you've counted all the grains of sand.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

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.

Orkeosaurus wrote:That's like saying you can't play beach volleyball until you've counted all the grains of sand.

And THATS like saying you can go swimming as long as you dont get wet

Orkeosaurus wrote:

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:

Orkeosaurus wrote:

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.

I heard someone say /b/. o.o

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.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

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.