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

[Tom Paterson]

>From: [email protected] (gwhite)

>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."

HALIBURTON NATIONAL MAIL SERVICE

This is "competition"? Conglomerate, monster mega buck ownership of
*everything*? This is what having the USPS protects us from.

Yes, indeed, you posted (from 2001):

>http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&pubID=637>

Beginning sentence:

<The anthrax scare has already succeeded in doing what neither rain, sleet, nor
snow could do: close down the post office. >

Nothing like setting the tone with the opening volley. Note: the PO did not
"close down" due to the anthrax scare. Some real wishful thinking, there. Right
on your wavelength, gwhite.

Going on:

<Today, although only 61 percent of Americans have access to e-mail ¡ª a number
that has been growing by close to 20 percent a year ¡ª more letters are sent
via e-mail than traditional mail.>

Can I hear a "DUH"? email is "letters"? Sophistic. Yet more sophistry:

<Accordingly, as the number of people using e-mail has increased from close to
zero a decade ago to over 200 million today, its utility has increased
proportionately. As penetration rates approach 100 percent in the coming
decade, its utility may further accelerate, if only because governments,
schools, and others unwilling to communicate via a technology not universally
available will finally make the switch to e-mail.>

The "unavailable technology" is email (only "60%", their figures, use email).
When/if that goes to 100%, email still requires more "technical" know-how than
writing a letter and sticking a stamp on an addressed envelope. That technology
*is* universally available (neighborhood post offices, home pick-up and
delivery just about everywhere, courtesy USPS). Phew, what a stretcher (that
would be "lie" in plain English).

(same source):

<As the price of mail skyrockets and its <service declines, e-mail will look
that <much more appealing.

Well, we got that astronomical (if you call that rocketing) 3-cent increase. I
personally haven't seen any decline in service in the three-odd years since
this mess was published.

(PH,D):

<Viruses, low-image resolution, and inaccessible computers also make e-mail
imperfect in terms of security, convenience and quality. However, these
disadvantages are not intrinsic to e-mail but a function of early stage
technology and backward looking government policies. They could also be
overcome via the following reforms:

<Local, state, and federal government could allow people to receive bills and
make payments via e-mail. Instead of subsidizing regular mail transactions,
people who elect e-mail transactions could receive a discount to reflect
reduced mailing and processing costs.>

More Spice for these Navigators. Viruses have gotten much, much worse in spite
of various Bill Pay sevices. Probably because there's no real connection there?

Well, in our personal experience, we save on stamps and ordering new checks
with "email" bill paying, but the bank actually charges us more for the
service, unless we keep a chunk of money in the checking account that they
don't pay interest on in the first place. (Whoops, gwhite. No "customer
advantage there, talking $$$ anyhow.) The only "saving" with all this
competition is our time. Whoops, the bank didn't make some of the payments on
time because they screwed up the paperwork. There was some happy time, trying
to get that straightened out five or six times. So let's get a giant national
conglomerate together like Germany (bastion of Democracy and Freedom) where the
bank owns the post and the emails and everything, and see where that lands
us?????? Outta here. Thanks for the link, gwhite. --TP

 

[gwhite]

[email protected]ospam (Tom Paterson) wrote:

> This is "competition"?

Knucklehead, the response was to Kunich saying that private mail
"doesn't work anywhere." Are they getting their mail or not? That
point was not about *how much* competition exists for some given
snapshot in time in any given marketplace. You can be sure of one
thing, competition is *guaranteed* not to *ever* exist if one firm is
given monopoly protection.

> Conglomerate, monster mega buck ownership of
> *everything*? This is what having the USPS protects us from.

Funny you think USPS isn't "monster mega buck" itself.

> Yes, indeed, you posted (from 2001):
>
> >http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&pubID=637>

Now how does taking a bunch of stuff irrelevent to the basic issue
help your argument. I quoted the relevent part for you (there wasn't
any other in that particular article), and then you proceed to spin in
muck.

> Probably because there's no real connection there?

Exactly, so stop bothering with it.

> Well, in our personal experience, we save on stamps and ordering new checks
> with "email" bill paying, but the bank actually charges us more for the
> service, unless we keep a chunk of money in the checking account that they
> don't pay interest on in the first place. (Whoops, gwhite. No "customer
> advantage there, talking $$$ anyhow.)

Why are you blabbering about this?

> The only "saving" with all this
> competition is our time.

I guess you're saying your time isn't worth anything. Okay then!
That is likely the most profound thing you've written to date.

> Whoops, the bank didn't make some of the payments on
> time because they screwed up the paperwork. There was some happy time, trying
> to get that straightened out five or six times. So let's get a giant national
> conglomerate together like Germany (bastion of Democracy and Freedom) where the
> bank owns the post and the emails and everything, and see where that lands
> us??????

*What* are you blabbering about?

> Thanks for the link,...

I think the link you require is not available on-line. I'm still
trying to figure out why you want to have a pet mail service. Since
you can't articulate it, I'll just assume you don't really know.
After this last little demonstration, I have some doubts about what
you can know.

 

[Tom Kunich]

Greg, why are you ignoring the point that the US Postal system is the
world's most efficient and costs less than most other systems? A first class
letter in Japan will cost twice as much to mail as in the USA and just
between you and me, the letter doesn't go nearly as far.

I'm sitting here trying to make out what would make you think that
"competition" would lower the cost of mail to the populace as a whole
especially when I've already shown that the real cost of the "deregulated"
phone system has about doubled to the average home owner. Are you so stuck
on your ideology that you are willing to ignore facts?


"gwhite" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected]ospam (Tom Paterson) wrote:
>
> > This is "competition"?
>
> Knucklehead, the response was to Kunich saying that private mail
> "doesn't work anywhere." Are they getting their mail or not? That
> point was not about *how much* competition exists for some given
> snapshot in time in any given marketplace. You can be sure of one
> thing, competition is *guaranteed* not to *ever* exist if one firm is
> given monopoly protection.
>
> > Conglomerate, monster mega buck ownership of
> > *everything*? This is what having the USPS protects us from.
>
> Funny you think USPS isn't "monster mega buck" itself.
>
> > Yes, indeed, you posted (from 2001):
> >
> > >http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&pubID=637>
>
> Now how does taking a bunch of stuff irrelevent to the basic issue
> help your argument. I quoted the relevent part for you (there wasn't
> any other in that particular article), and then you proceed to spin in
> muck.
>
> > Probably because there's no real connection there?
>
> Exactly, so stop bothering with it.
>
> > Well, in our personal experience, we save on stamps and ordering new
checks
> > with "email" bill paying, but the bank actually charges us more for the
> > service, unless we keep a chunk of money in the checking account that
they
> > don't pay interest on in the first place. (Whoops, gwhite. No "customer
> > advantage there, talking $$$ anyhow.)
>
> Why are you blabbering about this?
>
> > The only "saving" with all this
> > competition is our time.
>
> I guess you're saying your time isn't worth anything. Okay then!
> That is likely the most profound thing you've written to date.
>
> > Whoops, the bank didn't make some of the payments on
> > time because they screwed up the paperwork. There was some happy time,
trying
> > to get that straightened out five or six times. So let's get a giant
national
> > conglomerate together like Germany (bastion of Democracy and Freedom)
where the
> > bank owns the post and the emails and everything, and see where that
lands
> > us??????
>
> *What* are you blabbering about?
>
> > Thanks for the link,...
>
> I think the link you require is not available on-line. I'm still
> trying to figure out why you want to have a pet mail service. Since
> you can't articulate it, I'll just assume you don't really know.
> After this last little demonstration, I have some doubts about what
> you can know.

 

[Tom Paterson]

>From: [email protected] (gwhite)

>Knucklehead, the response was to Kunich saying that private mail
>"doesn't work anywhere."

Oh, oh, called me a name. Did we touch a nerve, gwhite?

>You can be sure of one
>thing, competition is *guaranteed* not to *ever* exist if one firm is
>given monopoly protection.

Even "surface mail" is not a sole USPS monopoly since UPS and FedEx have
overnight service for "documents" (read, anything you want delivered quickly).
IME the USPS variety is a little cheaper. But for regular surface letter mail,
yes, a monopoly. Long may it be so.

>Funny you think USPS isn't "monster >mega buck" itself.

You said that, not me. It is and that's the plum that some want to pick (as I
said many posts ago). My obvious point there is the PO entanglement with the
largest national bank you seem to favor in Germany. Hardly "cutting up the pie"
for "healthy competition" as one would think from your earlier posts was your
ideal. More like selling out to the greatest power, making an even larger
conglomerate monopoly or near-monopoly. Given the reduction in services we've
seen from banks here in the US over the last 20 years or so, and the open
contempt displayed at some banks for "little depositors", where o where did you
get the idea that ownership by a bank would decrease the cost of sending a
letter?

(Quoting gwhite from '91):
>http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&pubID=637>

>Now how does taking a bunch of stuff irrelevent to the basic issue
>help your argument.

Because it was very relevent. You don't have to admit that.

< I quoted the relevent part for you (there wasn't
>any other in that particular article), and <then you proceed to spin in muck.

I think the muck is in the brains of the people who put that document together:
"Pay bills by email", "viruses will be defeated as the email-using population
increases". I didn't have to go all the way through to find at least a couple
of corkers in that mess.

(referring to the misbegotten article, above, I wrote)):
>> Probably because there's no real connection there?
>
>Exactly, so stop bothering with it.

No, it was such a marvelous stupidity, what pleasure to air it here. Reaching
for any foolish jab at USPS. Stupid.

["email" bill paying]

>Why are you blabbering about this?

You declaim, I blabber, eh gwhite? Right. Just showing that the "competition
for surface mail" in the article *you* offered can be a pain in the ass to use,
that paying bills by checks and USPS is easier and surer, contrary to the
cocked-hat assumptions in your article.

[more "email" bill paying]

>> The only "saving" with all this
>> competition is our time.

>I guess you're saying your time isn't worth anything. Okay then!
>That is likely the most profound thing >you've written to date.

I'll spell it out for you. The "economic advantage" to not using USPS, that is,
paying bills "by email" as your article referred to, is not economically
advantageous. The "saving our time" was sarcastic. Note I pointed out time
spent ironing out keystroke mistakes and other human error apparently quite
commonly encountered in these "Billpay" systems. Further spelling out, paying
by personal checks sent via USPS at least sometimes works better and is
cheaper.

>*What* are you blabbering about?

That foolish article you posted that was supposed to show the inferiority of
USPS.

>I think the link you require is not available >on-line.

I don't agree with you, and I think the article you posted is foolish.

>I'm still
>trying to figure out why you want to have >a pet mail service.

Your word, not mine. I drew a parallel to the airlines some time ago. I'd hate
to see the same decline in my mail delivery. You don't have to figure anything
out.

>Since
>you can't articulate it, I'll just assume you >don't really know.

I disagree with you. I've articulated that quite well.

>After this last little demonstration, I have some doubts about what
>you can know.

"You lost this one".

Would you like to return to arguing points anytime soon? I can't help but think
there is some unexpressed reason for dislike of the USPS besides "unnatural
monopoly".
Maybe not. --TP

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Tom Paterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> My obvious point there is the PO entanglement with the
> largest national bank you seem to favor in Germany. Hardly "cutting up the
pie"
> for "healthy competition" as one would think from your earlier posts was
your
> ideal.

Yeah, that really is amazing. Mail isn't something that can done by three
men and a dog. To set up even a fairly small delivery service would require
billions. That means that mail systems could only be set up by
multi-gigabuck corporations. (I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Greg
posts from a Mac because he hates Bill Gates.)

Private companies wouldn't have to guarantee mail deliveries nor would there
be criminal processes in place for "accidently" opened mail or non-delivery.

What do you want to bet that Greg would be "for" passing twenty thousand
laws to protect the mail once it was in the hands of a private company?

We can thank the American education system when we see people like Greg who
seems to have no practical sense of proportion when discussing political
philosophy. What ever happened to men like Washington and Jefferson and
Franklin who understood that there are practical limits to everything?

 

[gwhite]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> Greg, why are you ignoring the point that the US Postal system is the
> world's most efficient and costs less than most other systems?

It doesn't sound like they need to worry about removing monopoly
protection.

> I'm sitting here trying to make out what would make you think that
> "competition" would lower the cost of mail to the populace as a whole...

So what if it doesn't lower the cost of sending a letter? But in any
case, you seem to worry about finding out.

> ...especially when I've already shown that the real cost of the "deregulated"
> phone system has about doubled to the average home owner.

Um, no. Moreover, I can get long distance for less than *ever* before.


The local markets are still a monopoly for the most part. That's
because the marginal cost of delivery *does* approach zero for the local
phone company. They own the transmission lines and one of the
problems with getting local competition is that the local Telco still
does look a lot more like a natural monopoly. That can't be said about
the little truck that drives around with mail.

> Are you so stuck
> on your ideology that you are willing to ignore facts?

The fact is you are afraid of removing monopoly protection, for no
apparent reason.

That's the way it is.
That's the way it was.
That's the way it is.
How come?
Just because.
-- Lyric from a Gary Myrick song

 

[gwhite]

Tom Paterson wrote:

>>From: [email protected] (gwhite)
>
>
>>Knucklehead, the response was to Kunich saying that private mail
>>"doesn't work anywhere."
>
>
> Oh, oh, called me a name. Did we touch a nerve, gwhite?

I don't think your concern should be my nerves.

> But for regular surface letter mail,
> yes, a monopoly. Long may it be so.

How come?
Just because.

>>Funny you think USPS isn't "monster >mega buck" itself.

> You said that, not me.

So in other words, there is no logic or consitancy to anything you have
to say.

Like, take a quote from the link you seem to love to focus on:

"The total revenue of the Postal Service, including package delivery, is
$65 billion. Only nine companies in the United States have more revenue."

> It is and that's the plum that some want to pick (as I
> said many posts ago).

Some? Who are they? Only you and Kunich have put it in those terms.

> My obvious point there is the PO entanglement with the
> largest national bank you seem to favor in Germany. Hardly "cutting up the pie"
> for "healthy competition" as one would think from your earlier posts was your
> ideal.

So you think a firm should not be able to own a grocery store *and* a
hardware store. I know you have no idea why that should be so. Is the
hardware store competing with the grocery stores owned by other firms?

> More like selling out to the greatest power, making an even larger
> conglomerate monopoly or near-monopoly.

I see. You hate success. How is owning a bank monopolizing letter
delivery service? No, never mind.

> Given the reduction in services we've
> seen from banks here in the US over the last 20 years or so, and the open
> contempt displayed at some banks for "little depositors", where o where did you
> get the idea that ownership by a bank would decrease the cost of sending a
> letter?

I wrote that? I loved that quote from susupply (Patrick Sullivan, who
popped up his head in a sci.econ google search regarding the postal
service). It had a line something like "No, you cliche spouting
jerk..." When I hear about contempt by banks of little depositors, I
get the feeling you are a cliche spouting jerk.

> (Quoting gwhite from '91):
>
>>http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&pubID=637>
>
>
>>Now how does taking a bunch of stuff irrelevent to the basic issue
>>help your argument.
>
> Because it was very relevent. You don't have to admit that.

So take some quotes out, connect the dots, and show how it supports your
backing of sustained monopoly protection, where no natural monopoly
exists. Here it is again:

"Ultimately, the post office should be privatized and forced to compete
on equal terms,..."

And part I didn't originally quote:

"Nevertheless, vigorous political opposition to any change from the
status quo is inevitable. Such opposition, however, should not be a
reason to avoid making changes that are ultimately in the best interest
of the American public."

And of course you demonstrate exactly that opposition. The only hitch
is, you don't have the slightest clue why. Like the song says:

How come?
Just because.


> I think the muck is in the brains of the people who put that document together:
> "Pay bills by email", "viruses will be defeated as the email-using population
> increases". I didn't have to go all the way through to find at least a couple
> of corkers in that mess.

You found a corker? I already do a lot of transactions electronically,
email. Basically viruses *are* defeated on pretty much a regular
basis. In fact, when there is the rare "big problem," it provokes a lot
of news. People get their email. That is a fact.

> No, it was such a marvelous stupidity, what pleasure to air it here. Reaching
> for any foolish jab at USPS.

Why should the monopoly protection afforded to the Post Office be immune
to scrutiny?

"Local, state, and federal government could allow people to receive
bills and make payments via e-mail. Instead of subsidizing regular mail
transactions, people who elect e-mail transactions could receive a
discount to reflect reduced mailing and processing costs."

So your problem with the entire article, is that other electronic
methods are used for transactions more than "email" per se? So they
might be off on that detail and that's where you get all your traction.

> Stupid.

I don't think other people's stupidity is a problem you should focus on.

> You declaim, I blabber, eh gwhite?

Yes.

> Right. Just showing that the "competition
> for surface mail" in the article *you* offered can be a pain in the ass to use,

They pretty much said that electronic transaction methods would continue
to eat into conventional mail methods. Is there any serious dispute
that this is true?

> that paying bills by checks and USPS is easier and surer, contrary to the
> cocked-hat assumptions in your article.

You are delusional. Just as an anecdote, my transactions continue to
shift towards electronic methods. I buy far fewer checks than I have
ever done since I've supported myself, and that is true despite the fact
I spend more money now than ever before. Is there any dispute that this
is the quantum shift of how we do business?

>>>The only "saving" with all this
>>>competition is our time.
>
>
>>I guess you're saying your time isn't worth anything. Okay then!
>>That is likely the most profound thing >you've written to date.
>
>
> I'll spell it out for you. The "economic advantage" to not using USPS, that is,
> paying bills "by email" as your article referred to, is not economically
> advantageous. The "saving our time" was sarcastic. Note I pointed out time
> spent ironing out keystroke mistakes and other human error apparently quite
> commonly encountered in these "Billpay" systems. Further spelling out, paying
> by personal checks sent via USPS at least sometimes works better and is
> cheaper.

I can pay many of my bills in under a minute electronically. It is
faster than writing a check, and cheaper too. I don't have anything
against writing checks and sending them by mail, just don't assume that
it is a method that is "here to stay" any more than the slide rule or
the horse and buggy were.

> That foolish article you posted that was supposed to show the inferiority of
> USPS.

Dumbass, the point wasn't how inferior the "post office" is. The point
was that as a technology, some part of the service the Post Office
offers will become obsolete, or at least will continue to be
marginalized. This isn't new or bad, it is just how the world works.
There is will likely be printed material hand delivered for some time;
calm down. The printing press made hand written books obsolete. The
computer made the typewriter obsolete. It happens. There is no serious
question that information delivery is switching to electronic means.
That was pointed out in the article. How can you post messages to rbr
and simultaneously think otherwise?

Moreover, and since you seem to focus so much on that particualar
article, it said:

"The United States Postal Service is divided into two businesses: an
information (letter) delivery business, and a package delivery business.
The latter is a competitive business and has been growing, thanks
largely to e-commerce."

So right there they tell you the Post Office is hardly obsolete as a
whole. In fact, they *attribute* the *growth* part of the business to
the very thing you claim is *not* obsoleted by electronic means:
e-commerce. I mean, how dense could you possibly be?

>>I think the link you require is not available >on-line.
>
> I don't agree with you, and I think the article you posted is foolish.

Dude, you don't even know what it said.

>>I'm still
>>trying to figure out why you want to have >a pet mail service.
>
> Your word, not mine. I drew a parallel to the airlines some time ago. I'd hate
> to see the same decline in my mail delivery.

IT DID NOT DECLINE. IT GREW.

> You don't have to figure anything
> out.

I can't figure out why the Post Office should have monopoly protection.
You have not helped.

>>Since
>>you can't articulate it, I'll just assume you >don't really know.
>
> I disagree with you. I've articulated that quite well.

You have not given *one* good reason.

> Would you like to return to arguing points anytime soon?

Do you think it would help? I don't.

> I can't help but think
> there is some unexpressed reason for dislike of the USPS besides "unnatural
> monopoly".

Get this through your noggin: I don't dislike the Postal Service. They
are just another business to me. I simply haven't heard of a sufficient
reason why they should have monopoly protection. In that light, my
opinion is that they should not have that protection.

 

[gwhite]

Tom Kunich wrote:


> Yeah, that really is amazing. Mail isn't something that can done by three
> men and a dog. To set up even a fairly small delivery service would require
> billions. That means that mail systems could only be set up by
> multi-gigabuck corporations.

The Postal Service fits that description. Sounds like they don't need
monopoly protection.

> Private companies wouldn't have to guarantee mail deliveries...

They wouldn't? I don't think they will be in business for long if that
is true. I mean, when I send a package via FedEx, I don't say, "Well
just try your best to deliver. Just trying is good enough. What is
important is only that you try."

> ...nor would there
> be criminal processes in place for "accidently" opened mail or non-delivery.

Really?

> What do you want to bet that Greg would be "for" passing twenty thousand
> laws to protect the mail once it was in the hands of a private company?

Ante up. I would like the opportunity to make the bet.

> We can thank the American education system when we see people like Greg who
> seems to have no practical sense of proportion when discussing political
> philosophy. What ever happened to men like Washington and Jefferson and
> Franklin who understood that there are practical limits to everything?

Um, "practical limits," or "scarce resources with alternative uses," or
"tradeoffs," is pretty much a cornerstone for me. And yes, that
cornerstone had a key moment in history in those men's time. The Wealth
of Nations was published in 1776.

 

[gwhite]

Tom Paterson wrote:


> Unjustified gov't interference in delivering mail. "Cut it off at the knees" =
> eliminating the USPS so that "private enterprise"

I never said to eliminate the Post Office. Go back and look again and
again and again, and think and think and think, if that is what you need
to do.

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

By definition, the protection is exclusionary. It is not free. It is
not inclusive. It is elitest because it locks out others. It is very
un-American.

>>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?

Holy ****.

>>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.

No, that is not remotely close. I said "end the monopoly protection."
If they are doing a good job, they have absolutely nothing to fear.

>>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.

You stupid jackass! THEY DO HAVE NOT COMPETITION DELIVERING MAIL. THEY
HAVE A MONOPOLY SANCTIONED BY THE GOVERNMENT! I mean, you've got to try
pretty hard to be that wrong.

> I could say that the Post Office is one of the good things the
> gov't does...

So for the billionth time, if they are good at it they have absolutely
nothing to fear. They don't need monopoly protection if what you say is
true.

>>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.

It isn't about morality of "a big business," you idiot. It is about the
process aspects of the market system and government enforcement of
private contracts that knocked it out. Fastow is convicted. Skilling
is on trial. I said they were the main villains right here on rbr over
what seems like more than a year ago while Chang went on and on about
Ken Lay.

>>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.

Well if you read in the paper it is rigged, it must be true.

> (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.

I'll put it another way: I have no clue what you were trying to communicate.

But:
>
> "Failing the desired official destruction of the USPS,...

You are an idiot. I have no such desire for "destruction" and have
never suggested such a thing.

> ...did you not at least feel a brief moment of gladness
> to see the end of the bike team sponsorship,...

No. Not one moment of gladness.

> ...knowing of the world-wide publicity acheived (attracting increased profitable
> trade),...

It may well have done that, and that would pretty much financially
justify the sponsorship.

> ... and the USPS employee pride in the Postal team's accomplishments?"

Why would I care about that? What part did the employee play in
Lance's TdF wins?

 

[gwhite]

Tom Kunich wrote:

> "gwhite" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>[email protected] (Tom Paterson) wrote in message
>
> news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>>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?

What questions?

> Are you frightened that
> the answers will contradict yourself?

I can't get one good reason out of Tom&Tom. Maybe it exists, but you
haven't expressed any.

> 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.

To which I asked long ago: so what? Why not pay what it costs? Why
should remote locations get subsidized?

> 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.

"How competive that can be" depends on how well they run their business
compared to the other firms in the market. Did you just feel like asking?

> 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.

Why does the high-minded socialist get to decide what "fair" and
"reasonable" are? I mean, the mail isn't a big deal to me really. It
sure won't break my heart if things continue on as they are. But it is
an issue that seems to underscore the socialistic bias of some people,
and they almost always are unclear on the foundational reasons of why
they believe what they believe. That is the root of why Tom&Tom have no
reason. "It is this way just because that's the way we've always done it."

> You don't like that.

You got that right.

> 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.

If it is so "common sense" why can't you explain it?

 

[Tom Paterson]

>From: gwhite

(entire contents of 5-in-a-row posts by gwhite snipped, unread) (Sorry, since
you disavowed your own link, I ain't got time for the blather.)

So, did you come to your senses and agree with Tom K. and me on the points of
discussion? Simple yes or no will do. TIA.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"gwhite" <gwhite@hocuspocus_ti.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > Greg, why are you ignoring the point that the US Postal system is the
> > world's most efficient and costs less than most other systems?
>
> It doesn't sound like they need to worry about removing monopoly
> protection.

Are you willing to allow Microsoft to take over the postal service?

> > I'm sitting here trying to make out what would make you think that
> > "competition" would lower the cost of mail to the populace as a whole...
>
> So what if it doesn't lower the cost of sending a letter? But in any
> case, you seem to worry about finding out.

So what you're saying is that you want competition even if it hurts the
population as a whole. Apparently you are unaware of what "predatory
pricing" means and how it's used. You really need to go to Japan and find
out about such things.

> > ...especially when I've already shown that the real cost of the
"deregulated"
> > phone system has about doubled to the average home owner.
>
> Um, no. Moreover, I can get long distance for less than *ever* before.

Sorry, the average cost of a monthly phone bill has completely outpaced
inflation. Bragging about cheaper long distance calls when in fact your
local service is substantially higher and your monthly phone bill is higher
is short sighted to say the least. I happened to have phone bills around
from the 80's when I started cleaning my mother's house out after her death
and compared them.

And long distance costs didn't drop because of "competition" per se' but
because of technological advances that allowed phone lines to carry many
more calls per wire. These charges would have fallen naturally in the old
system as well though perhaps not as much.

> > Are you so stuck
> > on your ideology that you are willing to ignore facts?
>
> The fact is you are afraid of removing monopoly protection, for no
> apparent reason.

Sorry, for many reasons among them:

1) Predictory pricing can destroy the public service which has taken two
centuries to perfect.
2) Only huge corporations could preovide nationwide service and, just like
we are about to see the entire phone business return to a monopoly now
though this time unregulated, they would soon take over the mail business by
destroying all others and then provide mail service at what the market would
bear rather than what the cost of delivery is.
3) Protecting us from 1) and 2) above would require another layer of
bureaucracy which appears to be the thing you claim to be eliminating by
privatizing the postal system. We've seen just how effective the FDA are at
keeping injurious products off of the market - litigation concerning drugs
and foodstuffs are one of the largest businesses now in the USA. We've seen
how well the SEC protects the small investor. And yet you're willing if not
eager to have the same sort of service for your mail.
4) Compitition as you refer to it would mean that initially there would be
very many small mail delivery srevices which would somehow have to
coordinate mail delivery between their systems. Aside from the moronic idea
that this is "good" it would in fact be nothing more than an investment
scheme to enrichen Wall Street Bankers yet again.

I find it interesting that you want to enrichen the very people you so often
make vaguely unhappy references to.

 

[gwhite]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "gwhite" <gwhite@hocuspocus_ti.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>>>Greg, why are you ignoring the point that the US Postal system is the
>>>world's most efficient and costs less than most other systems?
>>
>>It doesn't sound like they need to worry about removing monopoly
>>protection.
>
> Are you willing to allow Microsoft to take over the postal service?

Why would Microsoft want the Postal service? I would recommend to Bill
that he not undertake something that he will likely fail at.

>>>I'm sitting here trying to make out what would make you think that
>>>"competition" would lower the cost of mail to the populace as a whole...
>>
>>So what if it doesn't lower the cost of sending a letter? But in any
>>case, you seem to worry about finding out.
>
>
> So what you're saying is that you want competition even if it hurts the
> population as a whole.

Except it wouldn't.

> Apparently you are unaware of what "predatory
> pricing" means and how it's used. You really need to go to Japan and find
> out about such things.

No one is going to understand you better in Japan than they are here. No one understands you
anywhere, except Paterson, and that is not complimentary.

>>>...especially when I've already shown that the real cost of the
>
> "deregulated"
>
>>>phone system has about doubled to the average home owner.
>>
>>Um, no. Moreover, I can get long distance for less than *ever* before.
>
>
> Sorry, the average cost of a monthly phone bill has completely outpaced
> inflation.

Sure, mine has gone up. Now I have DSL, a POTS line, two cell phones,
redial, call waiting....

> Bragging about cheaper long distance calls when in fact your
> local service is substantially higher and your monthly phone bill is higher
> is short sighted to say the least. I happened to have phone bills around
> from the 80's when I started cleaning my mother's house out after her death
> and compared them.
>
> And long distance costs didn't drop because of "competition" per se' but
> because of technological advances that allowed phone lines to carry many
> more calls per wire. These charges would have fallen naturally in the old
> system as well though perhaps not as much.

"...though perhaps not as much." Funny. Of course, that lower price is
exactly what competition did.

And though you wanted to ignore it, I pointed out that the _local_ phone
company *is* a lot more like a local monopoly than mail service. The
local company has high up-front costs, but the marginal cost of delivery
approaches zero. You can't say that about the little truck with the
friendly mail delivery personel. In truth of fact, the local phone
companies have not opened their circuits to competition in any
significant way. And why would they want to do that?

http://www.consumerreports.org/main...R<>folder_id=348009&ASSORTMENT<>ast_id=333153

"Average long-distance rates, deregulated in 1984, fell from an
inflation-adjusted 51 cents per minute that year to 14 cents in 1999.
But that reduction was made possible mostly by regulated cuts in access
charges--the fee that regulated local phone companies on each end of an
interstate call charge long-distance carriers to connect through the
local equipment. Regulated local residential urban phone bills,
meanwhile, dropped from an inflation-adjusted $24.64 per month in 1984
to $20.78 in 2000.

Add it all up, and adjust for inflation and greatly increased phone
usage, and the average household spent 2.6 cents per minute for 510
hours of local and long-distance calls in 1999, compared with 4.1 cents
per minute in 1984 for 304 hours."


>>>Are you so stuck
>>>on your ideology that you are willing to ignore facts?
>>
>>The fact is you are afraid of removing monopoly protection, for no
>>apparent reason.
>
>
> Sorry, for many reasons among them:
>
> 1) Predictory pricing can destroy the public service which has taken two
> centuries to perfect.

I see no reason why I need to personally dispatch this one. Pasted out from Irwin "In fact, in the
overwhelming majority of AD cases, such predatory motives can be ruled out as utterly implausible."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Basic Economics: A Citizen’s Guide to the Economy
Copyright © 2000 by Thomas Sowell
Published by Basic Books,
A Member of the Perseus Books Group
ISBN 0465-08138-X

pp323-325
“PREDATORY” PRICING

One of the popular fallacies that has become part of the tradi-
tion of anti-trust law is “predatory pricing.” According to this
theory, a big company that is out to eliminate its smaller competi-
tors and take over their share of the market will lower its prices to
a level that dooms the competitor to unsustainable losses and
forces it out of business. Then, having acquired a monopolistic
position, it will raise its prices—not just to the previous level, but
to new and higher levels in keeping with its new monopolistic
position. Thus, it recoups its losses and enjoys above-normal
profits thereafter, at the expense of the consumers.
One of the most remarkable things about this theory is that
those who advocate it seldom provide concrete examples of when
it actually happened. Perhaps even more remarkable, they have
not had to do so, even in courts of law, in anti-trust cases.
Both the A & P grocery chain in the 1940s and the Microsoft
Corporation in the 1990s have been accused of pursuing such a
practice in anti-trust cases, but without a single example of this
process having gone to completion. Instead, their current low
prices (in the case of A & P) and the inclusion of a free Internet
browser in Windows software (in the case of Microsoft) have
been interpreted as directed toward that end—though not with
actually having achieved it. Since it is impossible to prove a nega-
tive, the accused company cannot disprove that it is pursuing
such a goal, and the issue simply becomes a question of whether
those who hear the charge choose to believe it.
At one time, it was claimed that the Standard Oil Company
gained its dominant position in the petroleum industry this way.
Later scholarly research, however, discredited even this one ex-
ample. Yet the theory has continued to be advocated, with con-
crete examples being neither asked nor given. But this is more
than just a theory without evidence. It is a fallacy in that it makes
no economic sense.
A company that sustains losses by selling below cost to drive
out a competitor is following a very risky strategy. The only thing
it can be sure of is losing money initially. Whether it will ever re-
cover enough extra profits to make the gamble pay off in the long
run is problematical. Whether it can do so and escape the anti-
trust laws is even more problematical—and these laws can lead to
millions of dollars in fines and/or the dismemberment of the
company. But, even if our would-be predator manages somehow
to overcome these problems, it is by no means clear that eliminat-
ing existing competitors will mean eliminating competition.
Even when a rival firm has been forced into bankruptcy, its
physical equipment and the skills of the people who once made it
viable do not vanish into thin air. A new entrepreneur can come
along and acquire both—perhaps at low distress sale prices, en-
abling the new competitor to have lower costs than the old and
hence be a more dangerous rival.
As an illustration of what can happen, back in 1933 The Wash-
ington Post went bankrupt, though not because of predatory pric-
ing. However, this bankruptcy did not cause the printing
equipment, the building, or the reporters to disappear. All were
acquired by publisher Eugene Meyer, at a price that was less than
one-fifth of what he had bid unsuccessfully for the same newspa-
per just four years earlier. In the decades that followed, under
new ownership and management, The Washington Post grew to
become the largest newspaper in the nation’s capital, while its ri-
vals disappeared one by one, until it was the only major newspa-
per in town in 1978.
Bankruptcy can eliminate particular owners and managers,
but it does not eliminate competition in the form of new people,
who may either take over an existing bankrupt enterprise or start
their own new business from scratch in the same industry. The
fallacy of “predatory pricing” includes another fallacy—confus-
ing existing competitors with competition. Competition is a con-
dition in the market in which there is no way to keep out those
who wish to enter an industry. Even elimination of all current
competitors will not destroy competition, if the resulting higher
profits of the surviving monopoly attract new competitors.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THOMAS SOWELL is the Rose and Milton
Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the Hoover
Institution, Stanford University. He has taught econom-
ics at colleges and universities across the country and has
published articles and books on economics in the United
States and overseas.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Free Trade under Fire
by Douglas A. Irwin
Publisher: Princeton Univ Pr; (October 6, 2003)
ISBN: 0691116342

pp125-128

Is Antidumping Defensible?

The antidumping process involves many arbitrary judgments and is sub-
ject to abuse. Can any intellectual defense be mustered in favor of the
AD laws? The problem is that price discrimination, charging different
prices in different markets, is a normal business practice and an accepted
feature of domestic competition. Exporters often find that competition is
more intense in the international market than in their home market,
where they have a more secure position with domestic consumers.
Therefore, exporters have to offer price discounts in foreign markets. On
economic grounds, the fact that a firm might charge two different prices
in two different markets should not be considered unfair or a problem
unless it somehow harms competition (such as through anticompetitive
actions or predatory practices) or reflects a market-distorting policy. If
geared toward preventing these actions, then antidumping policy could
have some merit as a means of preserving competition or correcting
alleged market distortions.
Unfortunately, the antidumping laws are not written to identify
and respond to such situations, giving the impression that the laws exist
only to protect domestic firms if they can jump through a few bureaucra-
tic hoops. For example, the antidumping laws might be worthwhile if
they prevented predatory pricing by foreign exporters. Predatory pricing
would occur when an exporter prices its goods below cost in an effort to
eliminate American producers and achieve a monopoly position. Firms
engaging in predatory pricing must be prepared to incur substantial
losses initially and then more than recoup those losses through the
future exercise of monopoly position. But this makes sense only if the
firm can effectively knock out most of its competitors in the United
States and in other countries. Were the Bangladesh shop towel pro-
ducers trying to eliminate their foreign rivals and achieve a monopoly
position? Were the flower growers from Colombia trying to do the same?
Most foreign exporters want to receive as high a price as possible from
their sales rather than wipe out their competition, which must strike
most firms as an impossible objective.
In fact, in the overwhelming majority of AD cases, such preda-
tory motives can be ruled out as utterly implausible. One researcher ex-
amined the structural characteristics of every one of the 282 industries
involved in every dumping case in the 1980s in which duties were im-
posed or in which the case was suspended or terminated. To isolate the
cases in which predatory pricing might be considered plausible, she first
eliminated all cases in which the industry in the United States and in the
challenged country was relatively unconcentrated. These were excluded
on the grounds that barriers to entry in such industries are probably not
substantial. And without barriers to entry, anticompetitive practices are
unlikely to exist because even if the firm drives rivals out of business, it
cannot raise prices to finance the losses sustained in the price war if
other firms can simply reenter the market once prices go up.
The researcher also eliminated cases in which there were multi-
ple exporters from a single country or from several countries, reasoning
that successful collusion by such firms would be unlikely and that there
are enough firms to preserve competition. Finally, she eliminated all
cases in which the import penetration level was not significant, or in
which import growth was not rapid, since the imports would be unlikely
to create market power if they did not comprise a large share of the U.S.
market. In the end, only thirty-nine cases were left, just 14 percent of all
those considered, in which the industries were characterized by substan-
tial domestic or foreign concentration. Of the remaining thirty-nine cases
in which the preconditions for predation did exist, we cannot say for sure
that predation was in fact a motive, only that it could not be ruled out.
The antidumping statue is not employed to prevent predatory
conduct or preserve competition, but simply to protect the domestic in-
dustry from foreign competition—at the expense of domestic con-
sumers, of course. One legal scholar concludes that while the antidump-
ing laws were “originally marketed as anti-predation measures, they are
now written in a way that compels the administering authorities to im-
pose antidumping measures in a vastly broader class of cases—all in-
stances in which dumping causes material harm to competing domestic
firms.”3’ A fTC commissioner once tried to shift the interpretation toward
an antipredation remedy. But petitioners appealed to the U.S. Court of
International Trade, which ruled that focusing on competition effects
“seems to assume that the purpose of the antidumping statute is merely
to prevent a particular type of ‘injury to competition’ rather than merely
‘material injury’ to industry.”
Some antidumping advocates claim that foreign firms have a

 

[gwhite]

gwhite wrote:

> If they've driven out the competitors, and no substitutes
> exist, they can charge whatever they want.

Not right -- only if demand is inelastic.

> "What the market will bear"
> is a competition condition, not the monopoly one you just described.

Not quite right. If demand is elastic, then some buyers could just opt out at higher prices, even
if there is no real close substitute. The monopoly firm would try to maximize profit, so there will
still be some aspect of the market driving prices (prices will be higher than a competitive market).
However, the overall quantity produced for society would be reduced, as some consumers got removed
from the monopolized market with its higher prices.

TK wrote:
> ... and then provide mail service at what the market would
> bear rather than what the cost of delivery is.

The market for mail is monopolized by decree now -- meaning (by your take) that the Post Office is
"overcharging" if they make a profit, and representing a mandated wealth transfer (socialism) if
they lose money on first class mail delivery. It is simply easier, less prone to error,
non-elitest, and not building up the government Leviathan, if the market is simply allowed to adjust
by itself. And again, "what the cost of delivery is" is marxist, and doesn't exist in the current
situation anyway. It is unreal in concept, because no one could have the slightest idea of what
"true costs are" in an environment with distorted incentives.