prev <-> next
[2001-06-18 15:10:00] - jdb: So basically you like government monopolies but not private company monopolies? -paul
[2001-06-18 15:10:00] - fedex and ups don't have to deal with half as many individual things as the usps -dave
[2001-06-18 15:10:00] - "It is a federal crime for private suppliers to transport and deliver messages on pieces of paper or other material media and charge prices as low as those of the U.S. Postal Service" -paul
[2001-06-18 15:09:00] - paul: actually, i bet the usps has pretty good statistics on how much mail they deliver correctly as opposed to how much gets lost. you have to admit it's a daunting task to deliver so much mail. -dave
[2001-06-18 15:09:00] - paul. it was my fault. i hate it when i add features that turn into bugs.
~a[2001-06-18 15:09:00] - dewey: Government employees do not get fired. They would have to not come to work for like a month to get put on suspension... -paul
[2001-06-18 15:08:00] - and lots of people give their mailcarrier gifts for christmas and food for holidays. - dewey
[2001-06-18 15:07:00] - conscience: Depends on your definition of frivolous -paul
[2001-06-18 15:07:00] - you know this argument is pretty moot. if you don't like the usps, the use email. it's faster, almost everyone has it, and you can get it for free almost anywhere. - mig
[2001-06-18 15:07:00] - paul: yes, and i like that. -jdb
[2001-06-18 15:06:00] - paul: they can get fired. - dewey
[2001-06-18 15:06:00] - jdb: Except the USPS has some pretty big powers given to it by the government and also some heavy handed regulations -paul
[2001-06-18 15:06:00] - how many tax dollars are wasted on frivolous law suits... - conscience
[2001-06-18 15:05:00] - dewey: I'm not talking about the ones that go postal, I'm talking about all USPS employees. There is no reason for them to do a good job because there is very little accountability -paul
[2001-06-18 15:05:00] - you can stop using services provided by the usps too
[2001-06-18 15:04:00] - i'll conced that point. if someone isn't happy with the way usps works, then they really can't find any alternative for letters at least. well, you can always rely on email now i guess. - mig
[2001-06-18 15:04:00] - dewey: Again, that begs the question if the USPS really doesn't receive government money, why not privatize it? -paul
[2001-06-18 15:04:00] - the usps operates very much like a private company now. totally self-contained. -jdb
[2001-06-18 15:04:00] - paul: the ones who go postal are the sorters. but the unions won't let them be replaced by machines. - dewey
[2001-06-18 15:03:00] - conscience: Like it or not, it's a very real threat to businesses and a big reason why they are accountable to consumers in ways the USPS could never be -paul
[2001-06-18 15:03:00] - they have the power to borrow public funds - dewey
[2001-06-18 15:02:00] - xpovos- the usps doesn't use tax money. the only way they get money is through stamps
[2001-06-18 15:02:00] - dewey: I think you're being idealistic now. In theory the post office is filled with happy government gnomes who really care about getting mail to the required destination. However, in real life I'll bet that 99% of USPS workers could care less -paul
[2001-06-18 15:01:00] - great.... sue the world
[2001-06-18 15:01:00] - dewey: repporting to congress does nothing to the service though, if anything they'll assume the USPS isn't doing a good job because they need more money, and hence higher taxes for us all. Lose-lose situation -- Xpovos
[2001-06-18 15:00:00] - the usps uses linux
-jdb[2001-06-18 15:00:00] - dewey: "Constitutional obligation to deliver mail"? you have got to be kidding me. And the post office has to really screw up big to get the attention of congress. And then what happens? How does congress fix things? -paul
[2001-06-18 14:58:00] - paul: the constitutional obligation to deliver mail. and when they screw up, they have to report to congress. - dewey
[2001-06-18 14:57:00] - mig: The USPS loses mail all the time and there really isn't anything I can do about it, if it was fedex or UPS I could sue them or stop using their services -paul
[2001-06-18 14:57:00] - ABQ, ALBUQUERQUE
[2001-06-18 14:56:00] - mig: How so? The only thing stopping the USPS from screwing up is it's own self-regulation. Private companies have to answer to it's customers when stuff goes wrong and they also have to work with capitalism -paul
[2001-06-18 14:54:00] - a: I think I broke your board with one of my links
-paul[2001-06-18 14:54:00] - paul: i would think the reverse is more true. - mig
[2001-06-18 14:54:00] - a: paul's second-to-last link broke the board - vinnie
[2001-06-18 14:53:00] - dewey: You are forgetting about new technology and such though, the postal service is a field that should be able to really increase productivity with new technology -paul
[2001-06-18 14:53:00] - a: nm, i fixed the problem on my end. i just have to upload through my dads computer. - mig
[2001-06-18 14:52:00] - mig: What do you mean? The USPS really has no obligation to get the mail to where it is suppose to be. Private companies face much more pressure to perform -paul
[2001-06-18 14:50:00] - http://www.cato.org/dailys/06-06-01.html This one is a short read if the others were too long -paul
[2001-06-18 14:50:00] - i sound like a broken record
-dave[2001-06-18 14:50:00] - paul: usps is good because it is a cheap, fairly reliable way to send mail. fedex and ups are more reliable, but you pay for it -dave
[2001-06-18 14:50:00] - Cato points out that prices have increased and service decreased. If inflation didn't occur, and population stayed the same, and if traffic didn't delay everything, then this would seem like a bad figure. convenient how he left that out - dewey
[2001-06-18 14:49:00] - a: so what was the problem? - mig
[2001-06-18 14:48:00] - http://www.cato.org/events/transcripts/001101et.pdf Cato Institute has a lot of stuff on USPS privatization and why it is a good thing -paul
[2001-06-18 14:48:00] - paul: they wouldn't necessarily have an obligation. - mig
[2001-06-18 14:47:00] - dewey: So do private companies. I would say private companies have a greater obligation... -paul
[2001-06-18 14:46:00] - dewey: So what is the difference between a good monopoly and a bad one? -paul
[2001-06-18 14:45:00] - no, but the usps has an obligation to get you your mail. - dewey
[2001-06-18 14:45:00] - paul: very mixed. i view usps vs. bell differently because one is gov't sponsored (sorta), the other is not. -jdb
[2001-06-18 14:45:00] - http://www.cato.org/cgi-bin/Web_store/web_store.cgi?page=mail.html&cart_id=6933584.11201
[2001-06-18 14:44:00] - Paul: I can't think of any monopolies right now because the ones that make sense aren't obtrusive and don't stick out. - dewey
[2001-06-18 14:44:00] - jdb: So did you support the break-up of the bell monopoly? -paul
[2001-06-18 14:43:00] - dewey: I hope you aren't implying that the USPS is good because it reliably gets mail to it's destination -paul
[2001-06-18 14:42:00] - dewey: as much as i hate monopolies, i agree. one thing for all of us to keep in mind is the scale that we are dealing with: 300+ million people, a lot of territory. -jdb
[2001-06-18 14:41:00] - actually. it's not really the prescence of monopolies that i have the real problem. it's the abusive ones that rile me up. - mig
[2001-06-18 14:41:00] - how do I know that I will get every piece of mail that is sent to me? It is a federal offense to interfer or intercept the mail. - dewey
[2001-06-18 14:41:00] - dewey: What areas does it make sense to have a monopoly and why? -paul
[2001-06-18 14:41:00] - fedex does have options and things for businesses that i'm not sure usps has -dave
[2001-06-18 14:40:00] - mig: I'm going to have to get you to see that monopolies aren't as bad as you think someday
-paul[2001-06-18 14:40:00] - dewey: cool - then i guess there really isn't any difference for the common person between the usps and fedex except that usps is cheaper. -dave
[2001-06-18 14:40:00] - there are just some things that it makes sense to have as a monopoly. - dewey
[2001-06-18 14:40:00] - anyone think the fcc should be elminiated? - mig
[2001-06-18 14:39:00] - dewey: Let me make sure I have this right. You are saying that we should not privatize the USPS because it would be more expensive, right? -paul
[2001-06-18 14:38:00] - that includes the government sponsered ones. - mig
[2001-06-18 14:38:00] - usps has tracking: http://www.usps.gov/shipping/epstrac.htm - dewey
[2001-06-18 14:38:00] - jdb: I wouldn't mind at all -paul
[2001-06-18 14:37:00] - i dislike all monopolies period. - mig
[2001-06-18 14:37:00] - eh? - mig
[2001-06-18 14:37:00] - miguel no esta aqui. ~a
[2001-06-18 14:36:00] - conscience: I think it is odd that people hate monopolies unless they are government sponsored ones... -paul
[2001-06-18 14:36:00] - paul: do you seriously want 3 different trucks coming to your door each day? -jdb
[2001-06-18 14:36:00] - paul: maybe, but the fact still remains that to overnight a package with fedex is more expensive than overnighting it with usps -dave
[2001-06-18 14:36:00] - miguel, i found out what was wrong. ~a
[2001-06-18 14:36:00] - paul: They do want to be more efficient; damn labor unions keep protesting computers and machines. it would be the same hassle for a private company. - dewey
[2001-06-18 14:35:00] - paul: fedex and ups offer tracking options as well, whereas priority mail does not. but you pay more for it -dave
[2001-06-18 14:34:00] - dave: *Shrug* It's the same basic service. The only reason why UPS and FedEx don't deliver letters like the USPS is because the USPS has a monopoly on it -paul
[2001-06-18 14:34:00] - paul: not sure. -jdb
[2001-06-18 14:34:00] - paul: it's true that the post office has priority mail which ships packages - but those prices are a little cheaper than fedex. fedex is just a "better brand" in that people think it is more reliable -dave
[2001-06-18 14:33:00] - paul has no problems with monopolies
[2001-06-18 14:33:00] - jdb: Are there government regulations preventing the local phone companies from becoming a monopoly again? -paul
[2001-06-18 14:32:00] - paul: again, i reiterate that ups and fedex offer different services than the regular post office -dave
[2001-06-18 14:32:00] - are some of you arguing against the reliability of the usps? -jdb
[2001-06-18 14:31:00] - paul: if fedex and ups were so much better at shipping letters, everyone would be using them for letters. but everyone uses regular postal service for letters -dave
[2001-06-18 14:31:00] - dewey: Let me take a different approach then, why does the government give tax breaks to the postal service but not to companies like AT&T or Sprint? -paul
[2001-06-18 14:30:00] - paul: their prices are not close. say you are going to mail a letter. you pay 33 cents or whatever to mail it and it will get there in 1-3 days. or you pay $15-$20 for fedex and it will get there the next day -dave
[2001-06-18 14:29:00] - i can't see how privatized mail systems would be super-efficient without becoming huge monopolies (a.k.a. usps). the efficiency i am speaking of is in regards to the majority of every day mail -- newspapers, letters, magazines, junk mail et al. -jdb
[2001-06-18 14:29:00] - paul: fedex and ups are package services. the post office does letters (packages too, but mainly letters) -dave
[2001-06-18 14:29:00] - dave: Not only are they more reliable, but their prices are fairly close as well because they are more efficient. Capitalism forces businesses to be efficient and government sponsored companies have no drive to be efficient -paul
[2001-06-18 14:28:00] - paul: fedex and ups are not necessarily better - you pay a lot more money for that reliability -dave
[2001-06-18 14:27:00] - paul: i don't think the idea of "guaranteed overnight" mail was around till fedex started it -dave
[2001-06-18 14:27:00] - dewey: The reason why UPS and Fedex can compete is that they are simply more efficient and better at what they do then the postal service is -paul
[2001-06-18 14:27:00] - paul: ups and fedex compete because they are more reliable
-dave[2001-06-18 14:26:00] - paul: so the extra money you're paying for stamps is going to the govt -dave
[2001-06-18 14:26:00] - dewey: How do UPS and FedEx stay in business? If the postal service pays no taxes then they have a huge advantage right? So how can UPS and fedex even hope to compete? -paul
[2001-06-18 14:26:00] - IN AN IDEAL WORLD INSTEAD OF MAILING THINGS WE WOULD HAVE TRANSPORTERS TO BEAM STUFF AROUND!
[2001-06-18 14:25:00] - dave: I understand what dewey is saying, but what I am saying is that the efficiency gained by privatization would offset that -paul
[2001-06-18 14:24:00] - paul: and then the govt would have more money from taxes - but we don't know what it would do with them -dave
[2001-06-18 14:24:00] - paul: privatizing would increase costs! because then they would have to pay taxes. - dewey
[2001-06-18 14:24:00] - paul: so in order to make the same amount of money as the govt postal service now, the private company would have to charge more for stamps -dave
[2001-06-18 14:23:00] - paul: but if there were a private company that did the postal service, they would have to pay taxes on those "revenues" that it made from stamps -dave
[2001-06-18 14:22:00] - paul: i see what dewey is saying. the post office now runs off of money it makes from stamps - and it pays no taxes on it's "revenues" from these stamps -dave
[2001-06-18 14:22:00] - anyway, ups and fedex seem to be doing rather well for themselves. - mig
[2001-06-18 14:20:00] - catching up on last few hours ... privatizing postal service? ugh. -jdb
[2001-06-18 14:19:00] - dewey: If the postal service really doesn't run off of tax money, then privatizing it would lower costs -paul
[2001-06-18 14:17:00] - dewey: Assuming that is true, they still have an advantage in that they don't pay taxes either. So if the postal service has an advantage like that, how can private mail courrier companies still compete? -paul
[2001-06-18 14:17:00] - once again, you're talking to the idealist. there would be no taxes at all in paul's scenario. - mig
[2001-06-18 14:16:00] - but when they privatize, the postal companies will have to pay taxes to the government and will thus cost them more to produce. - dewey
[2001-06-18 14:15:00] - but the post office doesn't use taxes. - dewey
[2001-06-18 14:14:00] - The important thing to remember is that all these government programs that we have aren't free. We pay for them in taxes. So all that getting rid of these programs (by privatization) does is let capitalism take a shot and lower costs for us -paul
[2001-06-18 14:12:00] - dewey: No I won't, because it is "free". Nobody wants to pay an electricity bill so let's make it "free" -paul
[2001-06-18 14:11:00] - ok, then you will pay an electricity tax. - dewey
[2001-06-18 14:09:00] - dewey: if what you are saying is true, then I propose we make everything "free". I don't want to pay the power bill so I want the government to for it so it is "free" -paul
[2001-06-18 14:08:00] - what Economics fallacy was that? "What is good for one is good for all" - dewey
[2001-06-18 14:07:00] - dewey: The problem with your ambulance analogy is that it is not "free". You pay for it with your taxes -paul
[2001-06-18 14:07:00] - the agency running the ems for pulaski county charges every person for their trip in the ambulance, thus inflating medical costs. Fairfax and Virginia Tech offers free ambulance service at a minimal tax cost. - dewey
[2001-06-18 14:06:00] - dewey: The key thing to remember, though, is that government run programs are almost always more inefficient then their private sector counterparts -paul
[2001-06-18 14:05:00] - question: you like to pay $1250 dollars to go the emergency room in an ambulance or do you like free? - dewey
[2001-06-18 14:04:00] - everyone: you can't privatize everything. - dewey
[2001-06-18 14:04:00] - paul: how so? it already acts like a private firm. if it went non-government, it would cost the consumer more because the company would have to pay taxes. - dewey
[2001-06-18 14:01:00] - dewey: Well, if you are right about the postal service getting all it's revenue from stamps, then privatizing it will make the services cheaper for the consumer and probably more efficient -paul
[2001-06-18 14:00:00] - ###/pics/download/37.gif ~a
[2001-06-18 14:00:00] - heh, quake3 tournament is logged in
- dewey[2001-06-18 13:58:00] - paul: what benifits will privatizing get for it? - dewey
[2001-06-18 13:57:00] - dewey: Well, if the postal service is just like a private company, why not privatize it then? -paul
[2001-06-18 13:57:00] - the link doesn't work for who? it works for me. ~a
[2001-06-18 13:56:00] - dewey: Well, if a company is always losing money.... how does it stay in business unless it gets some money to pay off it's debt? -paul
[2001-06-18 13:55:00] - was that link supposed to work?
[2001-06-18 13:54:00] - that is my understanding anyway - dewey
[2001-06-18 13:54:00] - telnet://megatron.tjhsst.edu:1999/
[2001-06-18 13:54:00] - the only difference between it and a private company is that the postal service doesn't have to pay taxes. - dewey
[2001-06-18 13:54:00] - The post office gets no tax money, only what it earns from stamp revenue. - dewey
[2001-06-18 13:53:00] - paul: what is your point? - dewey
[2001-06-18 13:50:00] - oops, that was me -paul
[2001-06-18 13:50:00] - dewey: Doesn't the postal service lose money like every year though? Isn't that why they are always raising the price of stamps?
[2001-06-18 13:47:00] - dewey: most likely some group of companies, like how the dvd standard was developed - vinnie
[2001-06-18 13:44:00] - ASP is made by microsoft...
boo - dewey[2001-06-18 13:43:00] - who would regulate ZIP codes? - dewey
[2001-06-18 13:42:00] - the postal service makes it all from stamps. I understand it that they get no government funding. - dewey
[2001-06-18 13:37:00] - a: hmmm, yeah that's what it looks like. i just coulda sworn that i didn't
-dave[2001-06-18 13:34:00] - dave: you pressed enter before the ":-D" and you finished typing; then you pressed enter again. the two requests were different so it posed both requests. ~a
[2001-06-18 13:30:00] - i meant because there's no infrastructure other than mailboxes. but the phone companies case is fairly similar... - vinnie
[2001-06-18 13:29:00] - from what i've seen, it used to take 3-6 days for mail to get anywhere. now, it's like 2-3 -dave
[2001-06-18 13:29:00] - in favor of the postal system, i think it has gotten much better in the past few years. -dave
[2001-06-18 13:28:00] - how the heck did that happen? i didn't press enter twice -dave
[2001-06-18 13:28:00] - vinnie: i think their revenue is from stamps, but they get lotsa government funding as well. basically, exactly what paul said
-dave[2001-06-18 13:28:00] - vinnie: i think their revenue is from stamps, but they get lotsa government funding as well. basically, exactly what paul said
[2001-06-18 13:21:00] - Well, I need to go get some lunch, so you guys argue the benefits of privatizing the postal system amongst yourselves
-paul[2001-06-18 13:20:00] - vinnie: I don't know about that... mail is a lot like phone companies isn't it? -paul
[2001-06-18 13:17:00] - at least mail is one of those nice things where it's hard to monopolize. anyone can deliver mail - vinnie
[2001-06-18 13:15:00] - ack, that was two sentences in one! i guess I didn't fully erase the last sentence
- vinnie[2001-06-18 13:15:00] - vinnie: In theory they are like any other business, running off of revenue from stamps and stuff. But I think they have lost money for the past so many years and the government has to use tax money to pay off the deficit -paul
[2001-06-18 13:14:00] - personally, i'm i'm a moron: do we pay taxes for the post office or is their revenue based on stamps? - vinnie
[2001-06-18 13:07:00] - conscience: Do I have the ability to have my tax dollars to stop paying for the postal service then? -paul
[2001-06-18 13:06:00] - aaron: it would have been nice if they allowed a gamma-correction option. - mig
[2001-06-18 13:06:00] - http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20010618-29483109.htm
[2001-06-18 13:06:00] - aaron: yeah, i've been having lighting problems with the castlevania game as well. - mig
[2001-06-18 13:05:00] - THERE ARE ALREADY PRIVATE COURIER SERVICES AVAILABLE SHOULD YOU FEEL THE NEED TO NOT USE FEDERAL SERVICES
[2001-06-18 13:02:00] - dave: I know you protestants don't have em, but to Catholics pride is one of the seven deadly sins -paul
[2001-06-18 13:01:00] - dave: I think the postal service should definitely be privatized, although I'll bet you prices would rise when it happens -paul
[2001-06-18 13:00:00] - proud idealist is ok, but just proud can have problems
-dave[2001-06-18 12:59:00] - paul: how bout your thoughts on the postal system? should that be privatized? personally i don't know -dave
[2001-06-18 12:58:00] - dave: I am an idealist and proud
-paul[2001-06-18 12:57:00] - paul: you need both idealists and realists to get the best you can -dave
[2001-06-18 12:56:00] - paul: i wasn't the one who was speaking about you being an idealist, but yeah, you are. nothing wrong with it if you state that you are looking at it ideally and know that things need to have a practical bent as well -dave
[2001-06-18 12:55:00] - mig: good point about toll booths -dave
[2001-06-18 12:43:00] - http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2001-06-13&res=l penny arcade complains about gba lighting problems... "My own solution isn't very high-tech, but it does allow me to whip the occasional monster" - aaron
[2001-06-18 12:40:00] - aaron: Out of the people that post on the message board, I think Logan is the biggest supporter with me being the only other semi-supporter -paul
[2001-06-18 12:39:00] - So who does think privatization of roads is a good thing? Logan? - aaron
[2001-06-18 12:36:00] - conscience: Very true, but I still think that kind of stuff wouldn't happen very often, even in the real world -paul
[2001-06-18 12:35:00] - mig: You're probably right, which is why I don't necessarily think it's a good idea to privatize roads -paul
[2001-06-18 12:32:00] - "ideally, that kind of stuff wouldn't happen." dangerous words. real life is often far from ideal.
[2001-06-18 12:32:00] - paul: that's not the point i was trying to make. yes private toll booths would be more efficient. but toll booth no matter what are going to be inefficient. - mig
[2001-06-18 12:30:00] - conscience: Go away, I stopped listening to you a long time ago
-paul[2001-06-18 12:29:00] - aaron: Oh, I take no offense by it. In fact I see it as somewhat of a compliment. I certainly agree that I am an idealist. -paul
[2001-06-18 12:26:00] - your conscience
[2001-06-18 12:26:00] - I don't know, but dave said that once before, and I still view you as an idealist - aaron
[2001-06-18 12:20:00] - "paul only speaks in ideals. he needs to look at the real world more" may I ask who is speaking? -paul
[2001-06-18 12:19:00] - mig: I imagine toll booths would only exist for highways and such, and they would be much more efficient then public toll booths -paul
[2001-06-18 12:10:00] - http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/19771.html - mig
[2001-06-18 12:06:00] - i live by 495 and i66, and that's a traffic nightmare already. - mig
[2001-06-18 12:05:00] - you still have to stop, and unless you can get a tollbooth that permits you to pay without stopping, you're going to have traffic problems in high-density roads. - mig
[2001-06-18 12:03:00] - http://public.wsj.com/news/hmc/sb992819157437237260.htm - mig
[2001-06-18 12:03:00] - no matter how you do it, a tollbooth is going to be heinously inefficient, i don't really see anyway you can get around that. - mig
[2001-06-18 12:01:00] - Heh, I'd like to see a comparison between a private tollbooth and a public tollbooth in terms of efficiency (smart tags? credit cards? versus coin-op?). -logan
[2001-06-18 12:01:00] - http://www.thestandard.com/article/0,1902,21944,00.html hahahahahahahah! it's already been resolved, but this is still really funny. - mig
[2001-06-18 11:56:00] - paul: that might be a good thing, but i don't know if its worth the annoyance of toll stops, and the increased traffic jams caused by toll booths. - mig
[2001-06-18 11:55:00] - paul only speaks in ideals. he needs to look at the real world more.
[2001-06-18 11:51:00] - The government actually makes it very expensive for private entities to build highways. Just imagine the taxes, paperwork, etc., and also imagine how peeved the government would be if you were encroaching on their monopoly. -logan
[2001-06-18 11:49:00] - paul: ahh ok. personally, even though there are some places they could do better (ie your road), i think maintenance and construction are handled fairly well now -dave
[2001-06-18 11:38:00] - http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-pm072998.html
[2001-06-18 11:08:00] - dave: Truth be told, I think privatization of roads might be cheaper, but the biggest gain would probably be in efficiency of road maintenance and construction -paul
[2001-06-18 11:07:00] - dave: Ideally, that kind of stuff wouldn't happen. And I said I wasn't necessarily advocating privatization of roads, just explaining how it would work -paul
[2001-06-18 10:51:00] - paul: so you think we're paying too much for our roads now? is that it? -dave
[2001-06-18 10:50:00] - our country is paved enough as it is. - dewey
[2001-06-18 10:49:00] - that seems inefficient, redundant, and unnecessary -dave
[2001-06-18 10:49:00] - paul: i would imagine they would keep certain pipelines separate. so if a competing company wanted to offer an alternative, they'd have to build a whole other pipeline. so you'd have two road systems that went to the same place? -dave
[2001-06-18 10:48:00] - dave: I don't see why this new alternative route would have to connect with the other company's road... -paul
[2001-06-18 10:48:00] - logan: with the community, if you don't contribute to the roads, then your neighbor who can't get an ambulance to his heart-attack is the one who suffers. - dewey
[2001-06-18 10:48:00] - paul: yes, but what exactly is that limit? if it's too high, defer to the government - vinnie
[2001-06-18 10:47:00] - logan: nope, you can't extend that. Only the owner uses the driveway. with communities, you will get freeloaders who will use without paying. with the driveway, if you don't pay and maintain it, you are the only one who gets hurt. - dewey
[2001-06-18 10:47:00] - dewey: Except that in most places there is no reason to because the government already has a road that everybody uses for free -paul
[2001-06-18 10:47:00] - paul: but don't all the roads interconnect? if they were private companies, would they let other companies connect to their roads if they were going to take away from their business? -dave
[2001-06-18 10:47:00] - Hurray! Logan is here to help an exausted Paul fend off the enemies of road privatization
-paul[2001-06-18 10:46:00] - vinnie: The thing is that it probably would never come to that though. If a company realizes it is going to lose it's business, it's going to lower the toll. It follows economics -paul
[2001-06-18 10:45:00] - paul: true, that is the idea behind the dulles toll road. but you just can't do that with all the roads in the country. there is nothing stopping you from being an entraupenuer and creating a highway where there isn't one but should be - dewey
[2001-06-18 10:45:00] - paul: how am i not surprised? -dave
[2001-06-18 10:45:00] - dewey: There are many varieties of roads too, and driveways have just as much a "standard" as roads and sidewalks -paul
[2001-06-18 10:44:00] - And I don't see why you have to stop there. -logan
[2001-06-18 10:44:00] - Extend the driveway. Think of the suburbs, where you have small private communities. They could certainly build their own roads. -logan
[2001-06-18 10:44:00] - we're talking about efficient alternatives. for there to be competition for bridges, you would basically need two bridges that run parallel beside each other. not two bridges that are two miles apart - vinnie
[2001-06-18 10:43:00] - paul: too many varieties of driveways: paved, gravel, cobblestone, etc. And if it went government, you wouldn't be able to get a driveway to fit your RV or boat on. - dewey
[2001-06-18 10:42:00] - dave: I'll debate you in person, anytime, anywhere
-paul[2001-06-18 10:42:00] - dewey: It would just be another cost of business, the same way that companies have to keep their building maintained, they have to keep their roads maintained too -paul
[2001-06-18 10:41:00] - vinnie: But there are alternatives, I can think of three or four different ways to get to a certain place from my house -paul
[2001-06-18 10:41:00] - dave: The road system we have no isn't exactly the paradigm of efficiency, I think privatization of roads would actually end up being just as efficient if not more so -paul
[2001-06-18 10:40:00] - dewey: I know, but it works for me. Why do we own our own driveways? Why not give them to the government? That would simplify so much stuff wouldn't it? -paul
[2001-06-18 10:40:00] - so it's back to work for me -dave
[2001-06-18 10:40:00] - eheh, it's too hard to argue on the message board. you can't get across everything you want to say -dave
[2001-06-18 10:39:00] - paul: on these issues where there can't be alternatives (bridges and other roads) i think it makes sense to hand off to the government - vinnie
[2001-06-18 10:39:00] - then how would a company collect money to keep the roads maintained? - dewey
[2001-06-18 10:39:00] - dave: There are always other ways to go -paul
[2001-06-18 10:38:00] - ...from the traffic flow there. and two completely separate road systems for the same area is unthinkable - inefficient etc - so it would be best to have a single company do a large area -dave
[2001-06-18 10:38:00] - paul: i wasn't making an analogy. I was saying that you must pay for your driveway
- dewey[2001-06-18 10:38:00] - dewey: and dyncorp's too
- vinnie[2001-06-18 10:38:00] - dewey: I highly doubt we would see tolls for roads smaller then highways and parkways in a privatized system -paul
[2001-06-18 10:37:00] - vinnie: that is how the FAA does all its stuff. have you heard all the news lately about new ideas they have? They are really MITRE's ideas.
- dewey[2001-06-18 10:37:00] - paul: it doesn't quite work exactly that way. you can't just "use another road." roads are all connected to one another, so the people that make the wilson bridge wouldn't let other people connect to their roads at a place that would take away.. -dav
[2001-06-18 10:36:00] - dave: That's a really bad way to judge things though. Using that logic we should have the government in charge of grocery stores -paul
[2001-06-18 10:36:00] - Dewey: That's a good analogy, if the government owned your driveway and a few people had private driveways, they would say that private ownership is bad because the driveway has to be shoveled and maintained -paul
[2001-06-18 10:35:00] - paul: you don't exactly have a choice of roads leading out from your house. they would have a monopoly on how you get out to the world. - dewey
[2001-06-18 10:35:00] - yeah, i actually agree with dewey here. the govt pays for it all so we can have a standard. the ironic thing though is that the government sometimes gets private companies to do construction and maintenance
- vinnie[2001-06-18 10:35:00] - i think that for roads to be privatized, you would need a single company to overlook a large area - to optimize the roads etc - but then nothing would stop them from raising prices -dave
[2001-06-18 10:35:00] - jdb: I would guess private companies would handle the roads in a place like Montana -paul
[2001-06-18 10:35:00] - paul: I believe the main issue is which government; town, county, state or federal government. I think fairfax is talking about funding some major road projects just because the federal or state governments are being stingy. - dewey
[2001-06-18 10:34:00] - dave: Because nobody would use their road then. It would follow the same basic principals of economics that everything else follows -paul
[2001-06-18 10:33:00] - like what if some private company owned the wilson bridge and charged people $10 to cross it? maybe other companies would build competing bridges, but that'd be kinda funny having bridges all over the place. -dave
[2001-06-18 10:33:00] - paul: why have a hybrid at all? You pay for your driveway, and the government pays for all the rest. - dewey
[2001-06-18 10:32:00] - at least the govt has the better of the public in mind (kinda). private companies are just out to make money -dave
[2001-06-18 10:32:00] - privatizing roads (if it were a popular thing) would work similar to how the government does it now. things like rural roads and highways, well, i guess that depends on who owns it - vinnie
[2001-06-18 10:31:00] - dave: All those problems would be pretty much eliminated if all roads were privatized, the problem is that having a hybrid of public and private roads doesn't work -paul
[2001-06-18 10:31:00] - paul: i think that'd be bad. what's to stop a private company from jacking up the tolls really high? -dave
[2001-06-18 10:30:00] - everyone: I am not necessarily advocating privatization of raods btw, I am just pointing out how it would work -paul
[2001-06-18 10:29:00] - dewey: Private companies would probably take control and impose a modest toll -paul
[2001-06-18 10:29:00] - dave: They have the ideas, it's just that they are taught that the state has the right to revoke those freedoms so they don't bother expressing those ideas -paul
[2001-06-18 10:28:00] - everyone was so relieved when the govt finally took ownership of it -dave
[2001-06-18 10:27:00] - long and short of it is, we didn't know what our road needed, it was a huge pain to worry about, and it cost a ton of money -dave
[2001-06-18 10:26:00] - and when it snowed we had to hire people to come plow our road -dave
[2001-06-18 10:26:00] - so, out in montana, where people live many miles aparts. what happens to their road system if it is privatized? -jdb
[2001-06-18 10:25:00] - and that "chip and tar" stuff lasted less than a year -dave
[2001-06-18 10:24:00] - paul: just to get a single inch of "chip and tar" which isn't half as good as asphalt, each family had to pay like 5-10 thousand dollars -dave
[2001-06-18 10:24:00] - dave: don't get me wrong. i love the us
- vinnieprev <-> next