• US Postal Service may default on a $5.5 billion trust fund payment Sept. 30th
    155 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32157043]Interesting attitude. It's the same one that's causing companies to outsource jobs because they'd rather pay slave wages overseas. A free global market won't work.[/QUOTE] But it can work. Those aren't slave wages. That is the true cost of unskilled labor. I would blame the outsourcing not on greedy company's but on the American peoples sense of superiority and entitlement.
[QUOTE=Ottomann;32157303]But it can work. Those aren't slave wages. That is the true cost of unskilled labor. I would blame the outsourcing not on greedy company's but on the American peoples sense of superiority and entitlement.[/QUOTE] I'd call that less of a superiority issue, and more of the fact that you can't live off of $3/hr wages.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32156985] Essential services are essential for a reason. If it was alright for them to be voluntary, they wouldn't be essential now would they?[/QUOTE] If a service has the ability to be voluntary it isn't necessarily essential now is it? As I said before I don't receive anything worthwhile from the mail anymore.
[QUOTE=Ottomann;32157353]If a service has the ability to be voluntary it isn't necessarily essential now is it? As I said before I don't receive anything worthwhile from the mail anymore.[/QUOTE] I assume you also think that healthcare should be voluntary so long as you don't get sick or that clean water should be voluntary so long as you don't feel like drinking it?
[QUOTE=Ottomann;32157303]But it can work. Those aren't slave wages. That is the true cost of unskilled labor. I would blame the outsourcing not on greedy company's but on the American peoples sense of superiority and entitlement.[/QUOTE] Actually, it's the true value of those wages only because their country isn't as developed. It's true, it's not a bad system. Those people make more in conditions [i]we[/i] decide are deplorable than they would make if the factory wasn't there in the first place, and it's true that the more factories enter their area the more money their nation makes on average, but it isn't the "true" value of labor on any other scale than that of their own country. [QUOTE=Megafanx13;32156216]You don't think you're being a little too ideological in that argument? Think realistically here, the Democratic Senate isn't going to pass some radical "get rid of the DoE" bill, and it's really not a worthy endeavor. I do not want schools to become even more for-profit than they already are. That kind of thing is already at disgustingly high levels.[/QUOTE] I'm not being ideological, I'm being a realist. Government monopolies throughout history have made service poorer and cost more. That is what the USPS is doing. I don't know why you are bringing the DOE into this, that's another thread completely. If you look through history and look at government sponsored monopolies, they are always [i]worse[/i] than their market competitors. This is evident in the case of Lysander Spooner (American Letter Mail Company) but it's also evident in the case of Cornelius Vanderbilt and the steamboat transportation industry. Where ever there has been a government sanctioned monopoly, there has been poor service and prices worse than there would have been otherwise. It doesn't matter if we give the "company" the official name of "Federal" or "US", the only thing that matters is that we recognize it as a monopoly. If you're a progressive as you claim to be, imagine the postal service as a private company which in some ways, it is. It's a monopoly. How can you not oppose it reasonably unless you have some sort of nationalistic reasons? [editline]e[/editline] Also, don't pull the "ideology" card out. We all have ideologies, just as your position isn't the "default" human position and is ideologically driven. Don't be a hypocrite.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32157391]I assume you also think that healthcare should be voluntary so long as you don't get sick or that clean water should be voluntary so long as you don't feel like drinking it?[/QUOTE] I believe in liberty. So I have a right to my body and money and can do as I please with them. I am not some conservative twit just so you know.
[QUOTE=s0beit;32157439]Actually, it's the true value of those wages only because their country isn't as developed. It's true, it's not a bad system. Those people make more in conditions [i]we[/i] decide are deplorable than they would make if the factory wasn't there in the first place, and it's true that the more factories enter their area the more money their nation makes on average, but it isn't the "true" value of labor on any other scale than that of their own country. I'm not being ideological, I'm being a realist. Government monopolies throughout history have made service poorer and cost more. That is what the USPS is doing. I don't know why you are bringing the DOE into this, that's another thread completely. If you look through history and look at government sponsored monopolies, they are always [i]worse[/i] than their market competitors. This is evident in the case of Lysander Spooner (American Letter Mail Company) but it's also evident in the case of Cornelius Vanderbilt and the steamboat transportation industry. Where ever there has been a government sanctioned monopoly, there has been poor service and prices worse than there would have been otherwise. It doesn't matter if we give the "company" the official name of "Federal" or "US", the only thing that matters is that we recognize it as a monopoly. If you're a progressive as you claim to be, imagine the postal service as a private company which in some ways, it is. It's a monopoly. How can you not oppose it reasonably unless you have some sort of nationalistic reasons? [editline]e[/editline] Also, don't pull the "ideology" card out. We all have ideologies, just as your position isn't the "default" human position and is ideologically driven. Don't be a hypocrite.[/QUOTE] I believe that mail should be nationalized because I believe it's an essential service that is not in the best hands with private companies, in my opinion. I say the same about healthcare, education, and other services, and we've been over this many times. [editline]6th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Ottomann;32157476]I believe in liberty. So I have a right to my body and money and can do as I please with them. I am not some conservative twit just so you know.[/QUOTE] No, you're just a Libertarian who believes every last service and item on this Earth should be voluntary. [editline]6th September 2011[/editline] Next you'll be telling me taxes shouldn't even exist.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32157495] No, you're just a Libertarian who believes every last service and item on this Earth should be voluntary.[/QUOTE] And why shouldn't it. There is no liberty when you are forced to choose the government bureaucratic monopolies.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32157495]I believe that mail should be nationalized because I believe it's an essential service that is not in the best hands with private companies, in my opinion. I say the same about healthcare, education, and other services, and we've been over this many times.[/quote] Yes and you'd nationalize everything, is that *shudder* an ideological position?!? In the case of mail history has made is crystal clear - a national service isn't needed, the USPS isn't even a national service other than it's a monopoly enforced nationally. If you're in favor of nationally enforced monopolies maybe we should make BP the official national oil provider for the US. It's the same exact concept. You'd oppose that though so maybe we'll call it USFP, United States Federal Petrolatum. That's better, now we can sucker the nationalists in.
Seems like you have been through this before hmmm?
[QUOTE=Ottomann;32157559]And why shouldn't it. There is no liberty when you are forced to choose the government bureaucratic monopolies.[/QUOTE] You're being hyperbolic about it. Are you going to tell me that in Scandinavia and many other European countries that there is no liberty? [editline]6th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=s0beit;32157562]Yes and you'd nationalize everything, is that *shudder* an ideological position?!?[/QUOTE] If I could just make whatever decisions I wanted with complete and total control over it, yeah I would, but that's not going to happen. I may follow an ideology, but at least I'm smart enough to recognize that given the current economic situation, deregulating everything may not be the best idea. Oh and I wouldn't nationalize everything, just energy production, healthcare, and other essentials.
I'm not going to argue that because I have never been there and don't know a lot about their systems. Maybe they do maybe they don't. But why should the US be just like them? The US is a different place with different people and history.
[QUOTE=Ottomann;32157616]I'm not going to argue that because I have never been there and don't know a lot about their systems. Maybe they do maybe they don't. But why should the US be just like them? The US is a different place with different people and history.[/QUOTE] Well for one thing Scandinavian nations' economies are doing a whole lot better than ours, although I'm sure s0beit will tell me they only appear to be doing well and are not actual stable.
Anyone else notice how the economical and governmental side of the modern world is taking a turn for the worse?
[QUOTE=Ottomann;32157559]And why shouldn't it. There is no liberty when you are forced to choose the government bureaucratic monopolies.[/QUOTE] surely you aren't naive as to believe liberty is naturalistic and god-given
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32157571]but at least I'm smart enough to recognize that given the current economic situation, deregulating everything may not be the best idea.[/QUOTE] That actually is the best idea. Exporting is what we need right now, jobs are what we need right now, but that's all extremely beside the point and totally irrelevant to the current discussion. Granting a monopoly to one company is not "regulation". Removing the government monopoly on mail delivery would allow companies to deliver mail, nobody would go without mail service and in all likelihood it would be cheaper and more innovative. How do I know? I have read history books and understand the nature of monopolies, especially government sanctioned ones. I suggest you just google the term "[url=http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=government+sanctioned+monopoly]government sanctioned monopoly[/url]" and read a little bit about them. Airplane monopolies, phone system monopolies, steamboat, mail. Every single time a market is opened up and competition is allowed, things get cheaper and better. I'd like for you to refute this position instead of taking the ideological stand against capitalism. In fact if you deem those services so essential, you'd [b]want[/b] open competition so any losses are internalized and other firms can take over in the event of any failure. The USPS fails? They cut back services, that essential service is being deprived from people. Some random mail company goes under? There's many others, life continues as usual.
is the USPS really a government monopoly on mail I don't think so
[QUOTE=thisispain;32157763]is the USPS really a government monopoly on mail I don't think so[/QUOTE] Yes, it is. [quote]The United States Postal Service (also known as USPS, the Post Office or U.S. Mail) is an independent agency of the United States government responsible for providing postal service in the United States. It is one of the few government agencies explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution.[/quote] Competition is illegal, it is the textbook definition of a government granted monopoly. [editline]e[/editline] Even if it were nationalized, non-independent, and competition were illegal it would still be a monopoly, and one could argue even if competition is legal it's a monopoly. It's just short of completely impossible to compete with a socialized service.
[QUOTE=s0beit;32157776]Yes, it is. Competition is illegal, it is the textbook definition of a government granted monopoly. [editline]e[/editline] Even if it were nationalized, non-independent, and competition were illegal it would still be a monopoly, and one could argue even if competition is legal it's a monopoly. It's just short of completely impossible to compete with a socialized service.[/QUOTE] If there is competition in the same market, it's not a monopoly. That quite literally goes against the definition of what something needs to be to be considered a monopoly.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32157811]If there is competition in the same market, it's not a monopoly. That quite literally goes against the definition of what something needs to be to be considered a monopoly.[/QUOTE] Would you consider Standard Oil a monopoly? A monopoly *can be* defined as 100% of the market share, or approaching 90%, but what truly defines a monopoly is that competition is impossible. It can be a good thing or a bad thing, but in the case of government granted ones it's almost universally a bad thing.
[QUOTE=thisispain;32157673]surely you aren't naive as to believe liberty is naturalistic and god-given[/QUOTE] Is it natural for the strong to dominate the weak? Yes. is it right to do so? No. It is a moral issue. Is it right to take someones money from them at gunpoint? Or to force them to pay for a strangers healthcare? I am just saying what is to me morally correct to me. From what I can see most government is coercion. It is not right to force people to do things. [editline]6th September 2011[/editline] [quote]The Private Express Statutes (or PES) are a group of United States federal civil and criminal laws placing various restrictions on the carriage and delivery of letters by all organizations other than the United States Postal Service.[/quote]
How does a organization this big go under.
[QUOTE=Ottomann;32157844]Is it natural for the strong to dominate the weak? Yes. is it right to do so? No. It is a moral issue. Is it right to take someones money from them at gunpoint? Or to force them to pay for a strangers healthcare? I am just saying what is to me morally correct to me. From what I can see most government is coercion. It is not right to force people to do things.[/QUOTE] I like your sentiments but it would be helpful if we stayed on topic. You aren't going to convince anyone here, and even if it were possibly you certainly aren't going to convince anyone by shoving the end-game of your philosophy in their faces. This argument has been had, many times over in this section and others. Can we please talk about the USPS? lol
[QUOTE=Ottomann;32157844]Is it natural for the strong to dominate the weak? Yes. is it right to do so? No. It is a moral issue. Is it right to take someones money from them at gunpoint? Or to force them to pay for a strangers healthcare? I am just saying what is to me morally correct to me. From what I can see most government is coercion. It is not right to force people to do things. [/QUOTE] The difference between the two is a very important one. Taxes ideally should go to things like healthcare and education, to better society. Stealing money at gunpoint only goes to the gunman, the two situations are not comparable.
[QUOTE=s0beit;32157776]Yes, it is. Competition is illegal, it is the textbook definition of a government granted monopoly. [editline]e[/editline] Even if it were nationalized, non-independent, and competition were illegal it would still be a monopoly, and one could argue even if competition is legal it's a monopoly. It's just short of completely impossible to compete with a socialized service.[/QUOTE] there are plenty of postal services besides the USPS it isn't illegal to start a mail service. and if it is impossible to compete with a socialized service then what exactly is the point? the idea is to provide citizens with a stable and low cost service, not to kill competition which it so plainly hasn't. please argue based on reality not fiction that's set up to favour your argument
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32157886]The difference between the two is a very important one. Taxes ideally should go to things like healthcare and education, to better society. Stealing money at gunpoint only goes to the gunman, the two situations are not comparable.[/QUOTE] What if they go to the gunman's starving child ok i'll stop :v: [QUOTE=thisispain;32157894]there are plenty of postal services besides the USPS it isn't illegal to start a mail service.[/quote] Read the fine print, yes it is. You can deliver *packages* legally, but not postage stamp letter mail. [QUOTE=thisispain;32157894]and if it is impossible to compete with a socialized service then what exactly is the point? the idea is to provide citizens with a stable and low cost service, not to kill competition which it so plainly hasn't.[/quote] Yes it has? When there's a social service in place it isn't hard to see very vividly that competition has been gutted, take any public service and look at it's competitors. [QUOTE=thisispain;32157894]please argue based on reality not fiction that's set up to favour your argument[/QUOTE] This is reality.
[QUOTE=s0beit;32157832]Would you consider Standard Oil a monopoly? A monopoly *can be* defined as 100% of the market share, or approaching 90%, but what truly defines a monopoly is that competition is impossible. It can be a good thing or a bad thing, but in the case of government granted ones it's almost universally a bad thing.[/QUOTE] You think competition is impossible? Is that why FedEx and UPS are viable services? [editline]6th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=s0beit;32157900]What if they go to the gunman's starving child ok i'll stop :v:[/QUOTE] Do you have brain damage?
Sorry got a little carried away. This is the first time I actually engaged in any discussion in length on a message board. But yeah. here here and all that jazz.
[QUOTE=Ottomann;32157844]It is a moral issue.[/QUOTE] no it isn't.
[QUOTE=thisispain;32157894]there are plenty of postal services besides the USPS it isn't illegal to start a mail service. and if it is impossible to compete with a socialized service then what exactly is the point? the idea is to provide citizens with a stable and low cost service, not to kill competition which it so plainly hasn't. please argue based on reality not fiction that's set up to favour your argument[/QUOTE] Exactly. Socialized services are not set up with the intention of shitting on business owners, they are set up to provided a standardized service at a lower cost, and forgo competition in place of more efficient service and more access to that service. [editline]6th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Ottomann;32157916]Sorry got a little carried away. This is the first time I actually engaged in any discussion in length on a message board. But yeah. here here and all that jazz.[/QUOTE] What?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.