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

[Baird Webel]

On 4/26/04 9:28 PM, in article [email protected], "hold my
beer and watch this..." <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Tom,
>
> Please quote the federal statute(s) that defines 'first class mail' as well
> as the other types of delivery services for which USPS is or is not granted
> exclusivity.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Hold My
>
>
> BTW: I'm assuming this exercise will be similar to when you told us all
> about how to validate a biological test method (e.g., the EPO assay), then
> upon further examination, it became apparent that you didn't know what the
> **** you were talking about.

I can't believe I'm involving myself in an argument between two of the
biggest idiots on this, or probably any other, newsgroup, but here's your
answer:

The code cites are: 18 U.S.C. 1693-1699, and 39 U.S.C. 601-606.

Most of the definitions are done by rule, not statute at: 39 CFR 310-320.

See http://www.usps.com/cpim/ftp/pubs/pub542.pdf if you want plain english
on the question.

Baird




> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "hold my beer and watch this..." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> If the USPS is so great, then why are you forbidden (by Federal Law, no
>>> less) from competing with them for non-parcel delivery?
>>
>> Firstly, USPS only has a monopoly on first class mail and nothing else.
> And
>> the reason for that is that USPS is required to supply mail service to
>> EVERYWHERE in the USA. That means there is mail delivery to the smallest
>> Inuit village in the ice barrens outside of Barrow, AK.
>>
>> If they weren't awarded a monopoly on this service the other companies
> would
>> chose to deliver first class mail ONLY to the major cities which they
> could
>> do for about the same price as USPS charges for first class now. This
> would
>> steal the only profitable service away from USPS and the American public
>> would end up having to pay much more for mail delivery to 80% of the USA.
>>
>> Now if you were ONLY smart enough to do a web search on first class mail
>> you'd have already known this and wouldn't have to have looked like a
> brain
>> dead vermin.
>>
>>
>
>

 

[Michael]

"Baird Webel" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:BCB45A72.3FC5A%[email protected]...

> I can't believe I'm involving myself in an argument between two of the
> biggest idiots on this, or probably any other, newsgroup, but here's your
> answer:

You probably don't want to contemplate this situation
overly much.

M.

 

[otto]

Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<rcousine-our record.
>
> As for the rest of USPS/Berry Floor, they're still a monstrous team.
> Note that they leave their Texan at home for the Vuelta, but have still
> won it twice. If Bruyneel can keep the rest of the team together and
> sign the right rider or two, they could probably have a great year doing
> the Pro Tour.

For clarities sake, Postal have only won the Vuelta once, last year.

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (otto) wrote:

> Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<rcousine-our record.
> >
> > As for the rest of USPS/Berry Floor, they're still a monstrous team.
> > Note that they leave their Texan at home for the Vuelta, but have still
> > won it twice. If Bruyneel can keep the rest of the team together and
> > sign the right rider or two, they could probably have a great year doing
> > the Pro Tour.
>
> For clarities sake, Postal have only won the Vuelta once, last year.

Whoops! You're right. I was thinking of Heras' two wins, but the first
was for Kelme.

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

 

[Tom Kunich]

"hold my beer and watch this..." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Tom,
> Please quote the federal statute(s) that defines 'first class mail' as
well
> as the other types of delivery services for which USPS is or is not
granted
> exclusivity.

Perhaps you have a post office somewhere in your vicinity in which you can
request a copy of Federal Publication 542 which will answer any questions
you may have on this subject.

 

[gwhite]

"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "hold my beer and watch this..." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > If the USPS is so great, then why are you forbidden (by Federal Law, no
> > less) from competing with them for non-parcel delivery?

Because politicians are culled from the ranks of morons?

> Firstly, USPS only has a monopoly on first class mail and nothing else. And
> the reason for that is that USPS is required to supply mail service to
> EVERYWHERE in the USA.

Which is silly.

> That means there is mail delivery to the smallest
> Inuit village in the ice barrens outside of Barrow, AK.

Why should they get a letter delivered for 37¢ if it costs more? Why
should I pay 37¢ if it can be done in a competetive environment for
31¢? If it costs more, why not pay what it costs? Who needs the
government distorting this particular marketplace?

> If they weren't awarded a monopoly on this service the other companies would
> chose to deliver first class mail ONLY to the major cities...

I'll bet they'll deliver wherever they can make a buck, but they won't
do it for free, just like me when I haul my ass to work. I don't get
paid, I don't show up.

> ... which they could
> do for about the same price as USPS charges for first class now.

Probably less, but who cares even if it was the same?

> This would
> steal the only profitable service away from USPS...

If it is so profitable, then likely a competetive environment would
make it even cheaper.

> ...and the American public would end up having to pay much
> more for mail delivery to 80% of the USA.

??? So what even if it were true? Why should the government distort
the cost of living out in the BoonDox by making it cost less than it
really does, or make living in the Bronx cost more than it really
does? Mandated wealth redistribution is fundamentally socialist.

> Now if you were ONLY smart enough to do a web search on first class mail
> you'd have already known this and wouldn't have to have looked like a brain
> dead vermin.

Let's kill this monopoly.

 

[gwhite]

Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote:

> ObBike: I think USPS can probably make a very good case that its
> bike-team sponsorship has been a good deal in terms of publicity and
> advertising (sports sponsorships usually cost less per eyeball than
> mounting a comparable TV ad campaign), even when you consider that their
> European sales must be minimal or nothing.

Maybe its a good thing for business, or maybe not. I don't care too
much either way.

There is no reason for the monopoly protection. But that has nothing
to do with Lance or whether some given marketing campaign is
worthwile.

 

[gwhite]

Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <F7ejc.42387$IW1.2064745@attbi_s52>,
> "Shayne Wissler" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On the contrary, private industry has demonstrated over and over again that
> > it can do things much more efficiently than the government can. Which is one
> > reason why socialists like you so quickly resort to name-calling: they know
> > they have no factual basis for their beliefs.

> Uh, Shayne, not to burst your bubble, but... Tom is no socialist. Oh, no.
> Very far from it. Very, VERY far. Just so you know in the future.

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.

 

[Tom Kunich]

Yeah, that damned Benjamin Franklin was a communist through and through.

"gwhite" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > In article <F7ejc.42387$IW1.2064745@attbi_s52>,
> > "Shayne Wissler" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > On the contrary, private industry has demonstrated over and over again
that
> > > it can do things much more efficiently than the government can. Which
is one
> > > reason why socialists like you so quickly resort to name-calling: they
know
> > > they have no factual basis for their beliefs.
>
> > Uh, Shayne, not to burst your bubble, but... Tom is no socialist. Oh,
no.
> > Very far from it. Very, VERY far. Just so you know in the future.
>
> 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.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"gwhite" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Why should they get a letter delivered for 37¢ if it costs more? Why
> should I pay 37¢ if it can be done in a competetive environment for
> 31¢? If it costs more, why not pay what it costs? Who needs the
> government distorting this particular marketplace?

Because private business will only use competitive pricing until the
competition is gone. Then they resort of profit making and your letter then
will cost 75¢. US Postal's commission is to make only enough money to pay
for operations. That means they have no requirements for profit. Have you
tried to buy and airline ticket lately? What happened to all of those cheap
fares?

> > If they weren't awarded a monopoly on this service the other companies
would
> > chose to deliver first class mail ONLY to the major cities...
>
> I'll bet they'll deliver wherever they can make a buck, but they won't
> do it for free, just like me when I haul my ass to work. I don't get
> paid, I don't show up.

Try sending UPS to Pavement Narrows, MT. (Byron Black, college professor and
ultra-leftwing looney ran away to Canada during Vietnam and wrote a cartoon
strip in which a motorcycle racer came from there. The town was so small
that they couldn't afford to put up a sign that showed the town name so all
three of them voted to change the name of the town to match the available
sign. I rode with Byron and he was a pretty good guy despite his ludicrous
politics.)

> > ... which they could
> > do for about the same price as USPS charges for first class now.
>
> Probably less, but who cares even if it was the same?

Explain how they could do it for less. It has taken the US Postal system
half a century to automate things to the point they are now. They have mail
pickups every few blocks. They have post offices everywhere. I would really
like to hear how all of you great businessmen could pull this off and make a
profit on 37¢ per letter.

> > ...and the American public would end up having to pay much
> > more for mail delivery to 80% of the USA.
>
> ??? So what even if it were true? Why should the government distort
> the cost of living out in the BoonDox by making it cost less than it
> really does, or make living in the Bronx cost more than it really
> does? Mandated wealth redistribution is fundamentally socialist.

Try this one on for size - UPS will mail a package for only twice the cost
of US Postal. Fed EX is a lot more expensive. Explain how this is where they
could make a profit by competing with the Postal System. What they could do
is drive the post office out of business and then screw the public just like
what happened on the phone system. Or did you miss that one?

> > Now if you were ONLY smart enough to do a web search on first class mail
> > you'd have already known this and wouldn't have to have looked like a
brain
> > dead vermin.
>
> Let's kill this monopoly.

Let's educate people so that they don't think that this is some sort of odd
monopoly.

 

[Shayne Wissler]

"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "gwhite" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Why should they get a letter delivered for 37¢ if it costs more? Why
> > should I pay 37¢ if it can be done in a competetive environment for
> > 31¢? If it costs more, why not pay what it costs? Who needs the
> > government distorting this particular marketplace?
>
> Because private business will only use competitive pricing until the
> competition is gone. Then they resort of profit making and your letter
then
> will cost 75¢.

Yeah, kind of like how computers keep getting faster and cheaper each year.

> US Postal's commission is to make only enough money to pay
> for operations. That means they have no requirements for profit. Have you
> tried to buy and airline ticket lately? What happened to all of those
cheap
> fares?

Only a socialist like you would think that the airline industry resembles a
free market. If you want to see what happens in a free market then pick
examples from where the government keeps it's nose out for the most part.


Shayne Wissler

 

[gwhite]

"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "gwhite" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Why should they get a letter delivered for 37¢ if it costs more? Why
> > should I pay 37¢ if it can be done in a competetive environment for
> > 31¢? If it costs more, why not pay what it costs? Who needs the
> > government distorting this particular marketplace?
>
> Because private business will only use competitive pricing until the
> competition is gone. Then they resort of profit making and your letter then
> will cost 75¢.

So let's say you're right. And then what happens? High profits are
noted and more firms enter the letter carrying business because of the
draw of the green. If you don't _prevent_ this by granting monopoly
protection, that's what will happen, since it isn't a natural
monopoly.

> US Postal's commission is to make only enough money to pay
> for operations. That means they have no requirements for profit. Have you
> tried to buy and airline ticket lately? What happened to all of those cheap
> fares?

Funny. One of the very good things Reagan did was deregulate the
industry and all it did was lower prices and increase air travel.
This isn't even disputed.

> Try sending UPS to Pavement Narrows, MT.

Exactly. Pay what it costs -- don't ask for someone else to subsidize
it.

> > Probably less, but who cares even if it was the same?
>
> Explain how they could do it for less. It has taken the US Postal system
> half a century to automate things to the point they are now.

If that is true (no one can really compete) then you have a hard time
explaining why they need monopoly protection. You can't have it both
ways.

> They have mail
> pickups every few blocks. They have post offices everywhere. I would really
> like to hear how all of you great businessmen could pull this off and make a
> profit on 37¢ per letter.

Well grant me a few bil of capital assets (trucks, buildings,
machines, etc), and give me twenty years to turn a profit... who
wouldn't want that deal?

> Try this one on for size - UPS will mail a package for only twice the cost
> of US Postal. Fed EX is a lot more expensive. Explain how this is where they
> could make a profit by competing with the Postal System.

So again, if they are so great, they have no need for monopoly
protection. Case made, thanks Tom. That was the essence of Brians
question, and I'm sure he thanks you finally for the answer.

> What they could do
> is drive the post office out of business...

How? By bleeding money where you say they obstensibly cannot compete?
And if they suck, why shouldn't they get zero'ed like every other
defunct business?

> ... and then screw the public just like
> what happened on the phone system.
> Or did you miss that one?

Yeah, I guess I did.

> > Let's kill this monopoly.
>
> Let's educate people so that they don't think that this
> is some sort of odd monopoly.

Um, it is odd. It is unnatural. This has all been done before. We
don't need to go further. For a few laughs:

http://tinyurl.com/2b8ks
http://tinyurl.com/2oxte
http://tinyurl.com/3x4q4

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27504-2001Aug31.html

And finish it off with a not often paralleled knee slapper:
http://tinyurl.com/27k8w

Who needs TV when you can go in a million off-topic-off-thread
directions?

 

[smiles]

"gwhite" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Why should they get a letter delivered for 37¢ if it costs more? Why
> should I pay 37¢ if it can be done in a competetive environment for
> 31¢? If it costs more, why not pay what it costs? Who needs the
> government distorting this particular marketplace?

The government is distorting a bunch of markets ... look at our food, they
subsutize farming so they can control the prices ... keep inflation low ...
and therfore keep you income which is most cases is adjusted by inflation
low. We allow cheap products in from China ... compare them to older US
products and keep inflation low ... why not postal?

s
http://boardnbike.com

 

[Matt Cahill]

[email protected] (gwhite) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > "hold my beer and watch this..." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > If the USPS is so great, then why are you forbidden (by Federal Law, no
> > > less) from competing with them for non-parcel delivery?
>
> Because politicians are culled from the ranks of morons?
>
> > Firstly, USPS only has a monopoly on first class mail and nothing else. And
> > the reason for that is that USPS is required to supply mail service to
> > EVERYWHERE in the USA.
>
> Which is silly.
>
> > That means there is mail delivery to the smallest
> > Inuit village in the ice barrens outside of Barrow, AK.
>
> Why should they get a letter delivered for 37¢ if it costs more? Why
> should I pay 37¢ if it can be done in a competetive environment for
> 31¢? If it costs more, why not pay what it costs? Who needs the
> government distorting this particular marketplace?
>
You could make this argument about any function that government
provides.

Why should my tax dollar pay for highways ? My bicycle doesn't need a
highway.

Why should my tax dollar pay for cops ? I haven't used a cop lately.

Why should my tax dollar pay for a war in Iraq ? Nobody in Iraq
tried to kill my daddy.

The country is better off with a highway system that supports the
delivery of goods throughout the country. The country is better off
with a public police force that at least presumably enforces the laws
in an equitable manner as opposed to a privately hired militia
enforcing laws for their employer. And the country is better off with
a defense that is ultimately answerable to the public despite what I
may think of those defense actions personally.

I think the government should offer a deal to you and anyone who
agrees with you. You never have to pay taxes again...BUT if we catch
you consuming one public service provided by the government...we shoot
your thieving ass dead. Any takers ?

 

[Shayne Wissler]

"Matt Cahill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> > > That means there is mail delivery to the smallest
> > > Inuit village in the ice barrens outside of Barrow, AK.
> >
> > Why should they get a letter delivered for 37¢ if it costs more? Why
> > should I pay 37¢ if it can be done in a competetive environment for
> > 31¢? If it costs more, why not pay what it costs? Who needs the
> > government distorting this particular marketplace?
> >
> You could make this argument about any function that government
> provides.

No. There's a big difference between government functions of protection
(police, military) and those that are providing other services. Building
roads and delivering mail should be done by the private sector, but clearly
there would be a problem if the private sector had competing police forces
and military.

> Why should my tax dollar pay for highways ? My bicycle doesn't need a
> highway.
>
> Why should my tax dollar pay for cops ? I haven't used a cop lately.
>
> Why should my tax dollar pay for a war in Iraq ? Nobody in Iraq
> tried to kill my daddy.

You simply lack imagination about the means of funding a proper government.
There are non-coercive means of funding it but socialists are so busy trying
to do everything for everyone that they don't spend any energy thinking of a
way to fund the police and miltary without extortion.

> The country is better off with a highway system that supports the
> delivery of goods throughout the country.

Sure, but the country would be far better off than that if the roads were
privately owned.

> The country is better off
> with a public police force that at least presumably enforces the laws
> in an equitable manner as opposed to a privately hired militia
> enforcing laws for their employer. And the country is better off with
> a defense that is ultimately answerable to the public despite what I
> may think of those defense actions personally.

Again, you fail to make an important distinction: providing protection
against harm from others is fundamentally different than delivering your
mail for you.

> I think the government should offer a deal to you and anyone who
> agrees with you. You never have to pay taxes again...BUT if we catch
> you consuming one public service provided by the government...we shoot
> your thieving ass dead. Any takers ?

Your crazed conception of justice is fitting to your comprehension of the
politics of this issue. Come back after you've educated yourself on the
matter. There's plenty of information available.


Shayne Wissler

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Matt Cahill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> You could make this argument about any function that government
> provides.
>
> Why should my tax dollar pay for highways ? My bicycle doesn't need a
> highway.

I was just about to use that example. Thanks for making it for me.

> Why should my tax dollar pay for cops ? I haven't used a cop lately.

Right, why is this a public service job instead of rent-a-cop?

> Why should my tax dollar pay for a war in Iraq ? Nobody in Iraq
> tried to kill my daddy.

That you know of. But true. If we have rent-a-cops why not rent-a-soldier?
Switzerland was known for that sort of thing and no one hates Switzerland.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Shayne Wissler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:6Kxkc.4224$0H1.432726@attbi_s54...
(*clipped entirely*)

Shayne, obviously you are missing the point. Matt suggests a group of
government services that could be eliminated if the idea was to provide ONLY
what private industry wasn't interested in possessing.

In response you merely make a laundry list of the services YOU think you'd
like to keep and those you wouldn't mind losing.

Factually, these decisions have already been made. The mails are a US
Government monopoly. The idea espoused by Keck and White that they should
somehow be allowed to pay less for service and to hell with any citizen who
doesn't live in a major city is so monumentally ignorant that it doesn't
require any rebuttal at all.

Phone service should have been likewise. The only advantage that I can see
to the phone company monopoly being broken is that technology advances have
been more rapidly applied as a marketing ploy. However, the cost of it is
greatly increased cost of service and much more poorly handled service calls
(my local phone company told me that a man would be there sometime between
9:00 am and 4:00 pm - please be available to let them in.)

 

[Shayne Wissler]

"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Shayne Wissler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:6Kxkc.4224$0H1.432726@attbi_s54...
> (*clipped entirely*)
>
> Shayne, obviously you are missing the point.

No Tom, you are. You have absolutely no idea of why it is OK for the
government to extort my money in order to pay for your utopia. You just feel
that you want it that way, and are fine and dandy with the guns being
pointed at your neighbors.

> The idea ... is so monumentally ignorant that it doesn't
> require any rebuttal at all.

No, your ideals are so monumentally criminal that they shouldn't have to be
rebutted. Unfortunately, when the majority holds cannibalism as the ideal,
you're left with little else than to rebut the idiocy. You and your kind do,
after all, have the guns.


Shayne Wissler

 

[Sam]

"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Shayne Wissler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:6Kxkc.4224$0H1.432726@attbi_s54...
> (*clipped entirely*)
>
> Shayne, obviously you are missing the point. Matt suggests a group of
> government services that could be eliminated if the idea was to provide
ONLY
> what private industry wasn't interested in possessing.
>
> In response you merely make a laundry list of the services YOU think you'd
> like to keep and those you wouldn't mind losing.
>
> Factually, these decisions have already been made. The mails are a US
> Government monopoly. The idea espoused by Keck and White that they should
> somehow be allowed to pay less for service and to hell with any citizen
who
> doesn't live in a major city is so monumentally ignorant that it doesn't
> require any rebuttal at all.
>
> Phone service should have been likewise. The only advantage that I can see
> to the phone company monopoly being broken is that technology advances
have
> been more rapidly applied as a marketing ploy. However, the cost of it is
> greatly increased cost of service and much more poorly handled service
calls
> (my local phone company told me that a man would be there sometime between
> 9:00 am and 4:00 pm - please be available to let them in.)
>
>

A lot of my phone bill (land and cell) seems to be government fees. Why
should we pay to have internet access in schools. Name a place where a
school cannot get internet access. A long distance phone call is much
cheaper today than it was before the great breakup.

 

[hold my beer and watch this...]

Federal Publican 542 deals with corporate taxes and is not a federal statute
addressing competition with the USPS for first class mail delivery.

Once again Tom, you've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you don't have
any idea what the **** you're talking about.

Do me a favor, and at least try to make it difficult for me to make you look
stupid.

"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> "hold my beer and watch this..." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Tom,
> > Please quote the federal statute(s) that defines 'first class mail' as
> well
> > as the other types of delivery services for which USPS is or is not
> granted
> > exclusivity.
>
> Perhaps you have a post office somewhere in your vicinity in which you can
> request a copy of Federal Publication 542 which will answer any questions
> you may have on this subject.
>
>