🚀 go-pugleaf

In <21309@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <1992Aug8.152413.28164@mercury.unt.edu> ian@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Ian Parberry) writes:
>>Playing Devil's Advocate again, how do you know that this will save money?
>>Perhaps you are just dithering around the optimum again.  Does anybody know
>>the results from similar moves in other countries?  If my memory served me
>>correctly, privatization of essential services was the primary algorithm
>>used by the Conservative governments in England and Commonwealth countries
>>in the 1970's.  I don't remember any great tax savings.  How much of your
>>tax goes to support the USPS?  I must admit, I don't know.  Are we talking
>>about $2, $20, or $200 per year per taxpayer?  I don't have any hard figures,
>>but once again, I am skeptical of any claims of significant savings.

>Adam Smith says so.

Well, actually, no he doesn't (unless you take a VERY simplistic view
of things).

>Several hundred years of capitalism say so as well.  It is simply the nature
>of free enterprise (where "free" really does mean "free" ...) that continued
>reductions in price and increases in quality appear when the free market is
>allowed to be moved by Adam Smith's invisible hand.

Well, actually, no it isn't, unless you once again take a very
simplistic view of things.  What will happen (assuming totally free
markets, no externalities or entry barriers, etc., etc.) is that
things will move to some local 'optimal' mix between cost and quality
of service.  Note that the local optimum need not be the global
optimum (or the desired state).

>Consider all of the taxpayer dollars that have been spent to "automate"
>the postal service.  Now, consider the 750,000 postal workers.  Consider
>the move from the rural areas to the suburban ones that have taken place
>within the last 40 years.  Now consider the cost of postage and how it has
>outpaced inflation about 3 to 1.

Consider the volume of mail moved and the subsidization of other
classes of mail by the cost of a first class stamp.

>>Does anybody know if there is any published analysis of how the taxpayers'
>>money is actually spent?  Perhaps we could liven up this tired old
>>discussion with some real facts, rather than cluttering up the net with more
>>"we don't need no taxes" mother-and-apple-pie platitudes.

>Are you saying that we need more taxes, or just that you are tired of being
>told that we don't need the federal government in the postal delivery
>business?  I'm not sure which part of this you object to - my claim that
>free enterprise is more efficient or your disgust with my trying to lower
>my tax bill.

Seems to me that what he's saying is that he'd like to see a few facts
injected into the discussion.  Your reaction to that seems to show
that you would rather discuss it from ideology.

>>BTW, you probably read in the newspaper, as I did this morning, that the
>>USPS is revamping itself to save money.  I might allow myself a modicum of
>>hope ...

>Oh boy.  I remember when there was the great claims that the ZIP Code was
>going to save MILLIONS by allowing mail routing to be automated.  Do you
>know what the cost of a letter has done since then?  

And do you know what inflation, volume, etc. have done since then?
Not to say that your complaint isn't justified, but you once again try
to 'prove' things with a simplistic analysis.  Do YOU have the actual
numbers for the impact of ZIP codes on mail delivery costs and on
speed?  I don't.


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.