US Postal not seeing value to sponsorship... why?

Tom Paterson

>From: gwhite@ti.com (gwhite)

>> Long as you leave the USPS standing, fine.
>
>I'm not interested in propping them up or knocking them down. If they
>can't stand on their own, then too bad, they can go bankrupt.

You've posted at least a few times to the contrary. "Unnatural monopoly",
remember? My understanding is that USPS is making money. Ah well, at least you
shot down the bike team sponsorship. Revel in your glory. --TP

gwhite

dustoyevsky@aol.comnospam (Tom Paterson) wrote in message news:<20040506090955.08439.00000742@mb-m10.aol.com>...
> >From: gwhite@ti.com (gwhite)
>
> >> Long as you leave the USPS standing, fine.
> >
> >I'm not interested in propping them up or knocking them down. If they
> >can't stand on their own, then too bad, they can go bankrupt.
>
> You've posted at least a few times to the contrary. "Unnatural monopoly",
> remember?

I know what I've wrote and you are flatly wrong. I wrote they are not
a natural monopoly and thus shouldn't have monopoly
protection/regulation. That is the essence of letting them stand on
their own. It isn't my business to help them or hurt them especially
in the context of "item delivery" when one considers that many
enterprises are likely willing to provide the service. There is no
reason for favoritism to one firm at the exclusion of others. Get it?

> My understanding is that USPS is making money.

Good for them. I have no problem with them turning a profit
(finally). If they all make a billion dollars, good for them as long
as they don't have unjustified mandated privilege over other firms.
It still stands that no one has a good reason for monopoly protection
or special association with the government other than to say "that's
the way we've always done it." For me, that isn't good enough.

> Ah well, at least you
> shot down the bike team sponsorship.

Ridiculous. I've never pretended to have any inkling the value of the
bike team sponsorship to USPS, and thus have neither supported nor
denigrated it.

> Revel in your glory.

Dumbass, I am a nobody. It isn't about me.

Tom Kunich

"Tom Paterson" <dustoyevsky@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20040506090955.08439.00000742@mb-m10.aol.com...
> >From: gwhite@ti.com (gwhite)
>
> >> Long as you leave the USPS standing, fine.
> >
> >I'm not interested in propping them up or knocking them down. If they
> >can't stand on their own, then too bad, they can go bankrupt.
>
> You've posted at least a few times to the contrary. "Unnatural monopoly",
> remember? My understanding is that USPS is making money. Ah well, at least
you
> shot down the bike team sponsorship. Revel in your glory. --TP

And in fact, private mail doesn't work anywhere in the world. Yet somehow
we're supposed to believe that it will work here. I think that we should
entirely eliminate all social security and all medicare. Why should I pay
for some asses who couldn't plan for their own future?

Tom Kunich

"gwhite" <gwhite@ti.com> wrote in message
news:698b8866.0405061103.653e9cc@posting.google.com...
> dustoyevsky@aol.comnospam (Tom Paterson) wrote in message
news:<20040506090955.08439.00000742@mb-m10.aol.com>...
> > >From: gwhite@ti.com (gwhite)
> >
> > >> Long as you leave the USPS standing, fine.
> > >
> > >I'm not interested in propping them up or knocking them down. If they
> > >can't stand on their own, then too bad, they can go bankrupt.
> >
> > You've posted at least a few times to the contrary. "Unnatural
monopoly",
> > remember?
>
> I know what I've wrote and you are flatly wrong. I wrote they are not
> a natural monopoly and thus shouldn't have monopoly
> protection/regulation.

And you are wrong. As I pointed out, if the USPS wasn't given a complete
monopoly on first class mail, private companies would take away only the
plums which would leave the public mail system STILL necessary but with a
delivery system that would never achieve break even let alone profitability.

It's a really good thing that you aren't running a business where anyone has
to rely on your judgement to supply their support.

Shayne Wissler

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:yTymc.10136$V97.2083@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "gwhite" <gwhite@ti.com> wrote in message
> news:698b8866.0405061103.653e9cc@posting.google.com...
> > dustoyevsky@aol.comnospam (Tom Paterson) wrote in message
> news:<20040506090955.08439.00000742@mb-m10.aol.com>...
> > > >From: gwhite@ti.com (gwhite)
> > >
> > > >> Long as you leave the USPS standing, fine.
> > > >
> > > >I'm not interested in propping them up or knocking them down. If
they
> > > >can't stand on their own, then too bad, they can go bankrupt.
> > >
> > > You've posted at least a few times to the contrary. "Unnatural
> monopoly",
> > > remember?
> >
> > I know what I've wrote and you are flatly wrong. I wrote they are not
> > a natural monopoly and thus shouldn't have monopoly
> > protection/regulation.
>
> And you are wrong. As I pointed out, if the USPS wasn't given a complete
> monopoly on first class mail, private companies would take away only the
> plums which would leave the public mail system STILL necessary but with a
> delivery system that would never achieve break even let alone
profitability.

No, you are wrong. You made this point before and he demolished it already.

Of course, as we have already observed, you have your own "creative" reading
method and don't actually read what you read.


Shayne Wissler

Tom Paterson

>From: gwhite@ti.com (gwhite)

>I know what I've wrote and you are flatly wrong. I wrote they are not
>a natural monopoly and thus shouldn't have monopoly
>protection/regulation.

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.racing
Date: 2004-04-29 02:50:33 PST
"gwhite" wrote:

<Government interference in places they <have no purpose of being is
<typical of socialism. Let's cut this puppy <off at the knees while we
<have the chance.

"Cutting off at the knees" is understood as killing. I could rebut "no purpose"
with the image of "Haliburton National Mail Service, Inc."

>There is no
>reason for favoritism to one firm at the >exclusion of others. Get it?

Tradition, accountability, an infrastructure that works. Those, I "get". A
37-cent letter is a bargain. If your lunch is spoiled because you think you
should only pay a dime to get a letter to the next city, your choice.

(I wrote):

>> Ah well, at least you
>> shot down the bike team sponsorship.
>
>Ridiculous. I've never pretended to have any inkling the value of the
>bike team sponsorship to USPS, and thus have neither supported nor
>denigrated it.

>> Revel in your glory.
>
>Dumbass, I am a nobody. It isn't about >me.

The attacks worked. Got them in trouble for sloppy accounting, a nice linkage
with the dark side of the world of finance-- USPS/Enron. Both dirty.

So, not even a private little hoo-rah to see a little corner (employee pride of
service) of the USPS knocked off? Granted, not "cut off at the knees" quite
yet. --TP

Tom Paterson

>From: "Tom Kunich"

>I think that we should
>entirely eliminate all social security and all medicare. Why should I pay
>for some asses who couldn't plan for their own future?

Well the Big Lie has been well-aired in the liberal (???) media (the BB'ers
didn't pay into SS, SS is broke). And Medicare? Well, the Seniors are being
confused as a first step toward taking full responsibility for their medical
costs.

I look at it this way, Tom. "Cost of doing business"; like paying for schools
and busses for others, some of whom just never do make enough money to "plan
for their own future". --TP

Alex Rodriguez

In article <SQymc.10135$V97.8059@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
cyclintom@yahoo.com says...

>And in fact, private mail doesn't work anywhere in the world. Yet somehow
>we're supposed to believe that it will work here. I think that we should
>entirely eliminate all social security and all medicare. Why should I pay
>for some asses who couldn't plan for their own future?

Way back when, someone told the old folks, no need to worry. Just pay
into the SS fund and you will be cared for when you get older. They believed
the government. Don't go blaming the old folks for mistakes made by the
government.
--------------
Alex

gwhite

dustoyevsky@aol.comnospam (Tom Paterson) wrote in message news:<20040506232235.22491.00000011@mb-m27.aol.com>...
> >From: gwhite@ti.com (gwhite)
>
> >I know what I've wrote and you are flatly wrong. I wrote they are not
> >a natural monopoly and thus shouldn't have monopoly
> >protection/regulation.

> <Government interference in places they <have no purpose of being is
> <typical of socialism. Let's cut this puppy <off at the knees while we
> <have the chance.
>
> "Cutting off at the knees" is understood as killing. I could rebut "no purpose"
> with the image of "Haliburton National Mail Service, Inc."

Again utterly ridiculous. Nothing was stated there about USPS
specifically other than they shouldn't get monopoly privileges. The
comment was clearly about unjustified government interference, not the
USPS.

> >There is no
> >reason for favoritism to one firm at the >exclusion of others. Get it?
>
> Tradition, accountability, an infrastructure that works. Those, I "get".

But not the concepts of freedom, exclusion, and inclusion.

> A
> 37-cent letter is a bargain.

In a rigged marketplace, how could you possibly know? You have no
idea if it is a "bargain." And if they are so great, so efficient,
and so accountable, you/they have little to fear of any competition.
Let them compete and _prove it_.

> If your lunch is spoiled because you think you
> should only pay a dime to get a letter to the next city, your choice.

I'm not too concerned about the dime. I am in principle concerned
about government interference and economic power translating into
political power. Weren't you the guy writing about the impossibility
of governmental "morality" and all the political payoffs? So when I
say "cut it off at the knees," you then respond by saying government
is sacred and can't be touched? You're irrational.

> The attacks worked. Got them in trouble for sloppy accounting, a nice linkage
> with the dark side of the world of finance-- USPS/Enron. Both dirty.

The difference is that as bad as Enron was, it finally got bankrupted
by the forces of the private enterprise world -- kaput. Government
bureaucracies and protected monopolies tend to outlive themselves,
more strongly exempt from the world of constraints that every one else
lives with every day of their lives.

> So, not even a private little hoo-rah to see a little corner (employee pride of
> service) of the USPS knocked off? Granted, not "cut off at the knees" quite
> yet.

That was incoherent.

Tom Kunich

"Tom Paterson" <dustoyevsky@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20040507082413.00117.00000962@mb-m12.aol.com...
> >From: "Tom Kunich"
>
> >I think that we should
> >entirely eliminate all social security and all medicare. Why should I pay
> >for some asses who couldn't plan for their own future?
>
> Well the Big Lie has been well-aired in the liberal (???) media (the
BB'ers
> didn't pay into SS, SS is broke). And Medicare? Well, the Seniors are
being
> confused as a first step toward taking full responsibility for their
medical
> costs.
>
> I look at it this way, Tom. "Cost of doing business"; like paying for
schools
> and busses for others, some of whom just never do make enough money to
"plan
> for their own future". --TP

Maybe you missed the sarcasm in my reply. (Perhaps it helps to know that
I'll be retiring in another couple of years or so.) Since the government
steals half of my money in taxes I haven't been able to "plan" my retirement
in a manner that would be acceptable. I NEED SS to retire. But then maybe
Greg, Baby Shayne and the rest will think that they should be able to take
care of themselves. But we know from experience what that means come
retirement time. Shayne will have saved about 10% of what he needs and will
snivel that he really DID need that SUV and that it was the US Government
that forced gas prices so high that he couldn't save any more.

Tom Kunich

"Alex Rodriguez" <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:c7g3a3$9tn$2@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu...
> In article <SQymc.10135$V97.8059@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> cyclintom@yahoo.com says...
>
> >And in fact, private mail doesn't work anywhere in the world. Yet somehow
> >we're supposed to believe that it will work here. I think that we should
> >entirely eliminate all social security and all medicare. Why should I pay
> >for some asses who couldn't plan for their own future?
>
> Way back when, someone told the old folks, no need to worry. Just pay
> into the SS fund and you will be cared for when you get older. They
believed
> the government. Don't go blaming the old folks for mistakes made by the
> government.

Can I blame the government for spending the SS surplus that would have
funded the SS into perpetuity?

Tom Kunich

"gwhite" <gwhite@ti.com> wrote in message
news:698b8866.0405070911.329e3d76@posting.google.com...
> dustoyevsky@aol.comnospam (Tom Paterson) wrote in message
news:<20040506232235.22491.00000011@mb-m27.aol.com>...
>
> > A 37-cent letter is a bargain.
>
> In a rigged marketplace, how could you possibly know? You have no
> idea if it is a "bargain." And if they are so great, so efficient,
> and so accountable, you/they have little to fear of any competition.
> Let them compete and _prove it_.

You just won't answer the real questions will you? Are you frightened that
the answers will contradict yourself?

Without the first class mail deliveries to the major cities, the cost of
mailing to small towns would be perhaps an order of magnitude higher than
they presently are.

Since you don't appear to understand what the US mail system is all about
let me explain some further - there ARE first class mail operators OTHER
than the US Government. They must offer a service that the US Postal
doesn't. That is why there are delivery services. Try sending your first
class letter across town with a bicycle messenger and then explain how
competitive they could be given a little more demand.

In order to provide mail service to small towns all over the USA and into
the hands of foreign countries for delivery outside the USA for a fair and
reasonable cost there must be a profit center. That profit center for US
Postal is monopolous delivery in the population centers.

You don't like that. But then you don't like a lot of things and it merely
shows that you haven't a shred of common sense at least in this regard.

gwhite

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:

> And in fact, private mail doesn't work anywhere in the world.

You're saying they don't get their mail?

"The Dutch and the Germans have opted for outright privatization, an
option that every other postal service in the industrialized world is
considering. In an interesting twist on the public-private debate, the
privatized Deutsche Post is now the majority shareholder of DHL, the
international shipping company. Deutsche Post also owns the largest
bank in Germany in addition to its express-mail business and a
regular-mail business."

I already posted this link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...anguage=printer

note:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0503/pappas1.asp

from: http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm...ticle&pubID=637
"Ultimately, the post office should be privatized and forced to
compete on equal terms, including the payment of taxes, with United
Parcel Service, FedEx, DHL, and other package delivery services. The
tens of billions of dollars of proceeds from the sale would belong to
the public. Meanwhile, investment in traditional mail delivery could
be curtailed. The Dutch and German post offices have already been
privatized, and the European Union is considering opening up
competition for all mail weighing over 150 grams, and then reducing
that weight over time."

Tom Paterson

>From: gwhite@ti.com (gwhite)

>Again utterly ridiculous.

No.

>The comment was clearly about unjustified government interference, not the
>USPS.

Unjustified gov't interference in delivering mail. "Cut it off at the knees" =
eliminating the USPS so that "private enterprise" (Haliburton-style mega buck
monopoly establishments) can take over. You can tell me what you "meant", this
is what I see when I read your words.

(I wrote):

>> Tradition, accountability, an infrastructure that works. Those, I "get".

>But not the concepts of freedom, exclusion, and inclusion.

If you're trying to say those will operate as some kind of moral force if the
USPS were ended tomorrow, I disagree.

(I opined):
>> A
>> 37-cent letter is a bargain.

(gwhite replied):

>In a rigged marketplace, how could you possibly know? You have no
>idea if it is a "bargain."

Sure I do: Milk is $3.50 a gallon, gumballs are a quarter, a 16oz Coke is
@$1.16. ompare shipping costs of FedEx, UPS with USPS, including overnights,
insurance rates. Getting a letter "anywhere" for less than $.40? Get real.
You're having a little problem with your ideology here.

> And if they are so great, so efficient,
>and so accountable, you/they have little to fear of any competition.
>Let them compete and _prove it_.

Translation: tear down the USPS, I don't like it.

>Weren't you the guy writing about the impossibility
>of governmental "morality" and all the political payoffs? So when I
>say "cut it off at the knees," you then respond by saying government
>is sacred and can't be touched? You're irrational.

Good stretch. Goes to costs. Again, compare what USPS does against the
competition. I could say that the Post Office is one of the good things the
gov't does-- some sloppy accounting of advertizing budgets the best they could
come up with? Like finding out that Clinton lost money on Whitewater.

>You're irrational.

Back at you on that one.

>The difference is that as bad as Enron was, it finally got bankrupted
>by the forces of the private enterprise >world -- kaput.

Tripped on its penis is more like it. And cost investors dearly. Not exactly a
shining example of the cleansing morality of the world of Big Business.

>Government
>bureaucracies and protected monopolies tend to outlive themselves,
>more strongly exempt from the world of constraints that every one else
>lives with every day of their lives.

From what I read in the papers, the world of business is rigged, big time, such
that "oversight" is a joke. That's right, you'll get in more trouble for
stealing a steak from the grocery store than most of those guys will get for
stealing millions. Tell me something new.

(I asked):

>> So, not even a private little hoo-rah to see a little corner (employee
>pride of
>> service) of the USPS knocked off? Granted, not "cut off at the knees" quite
>> yet.

(gwhite wiggled):

>That was incoherent.

No, it wasn't. But:

"Failing the desired official destruction of the USPS, did you not at least
feel a brief moment of gladness to see the end of the bike team sponsorship,
knowing of the world-wide publicity acheived (attracting increased profitable
trade), and the USPS employee pride in the Postal team's accomplishments?"
--TP