Quote:
Originally Posted by Mavdog
quite a gap in the understanding of "public benefits".
services provided by the government can't be looked at through a profit/loss prism, the benefits to the public aren't quantified or ascribed in simple numbers.
take the fire dept, or the police dept. code compliance? traffic and engineering? does trash collection need to break even, or is there a benefit to the public in having their trash picked up at regulary scheduled times, at their residence, with little waste lost, worth something?
as for lew and the post office, do you actually believe that if ups or fed ex was obligated to visit every home, every business every day, even if they don't deliver a package there, that either of them would be profitable at the rates they charge?
no. there's no way they would, and that public benefit is why the post office loses money. and why the post office is valuable to society.
|
Actually, it's more like having not one but two companies enjoy strong growth and profits duplicating a function the government was already providing, in spite of having to completely ramp up from zero and build trust and reliability. When I get express mail it's from a different carrier making a special stop. They had a big advantage, they already had the people and the facilities. The post office has attempted to play catch up for decades and is failing big time. You still can't track a package with reliability from them.
It's more accurate to say they just watched the business packages segment, the one that couldn't be faxed or emailed, go away from them. To get anything done in Government it has to get through 400 hundred people with differing agendas. That's great if you are passing law and you have enough diversity in the participants so you have checks and balances.
Not so good if you have to make adjustments to a changing environment. No for profit business would have left all those locations open as long as they did. It's why I distrust them for functions like health care.
There is absolutely no reason for Social Security and Medicare to be in their current state. The health and viability of the programs are secondary to keeping their position and influence. You can say the same for the executives in any company, but if a private for profit company raided the pension fund to expand foreign markets like say in South East Asia it's unlikely they would be around after it became public.
How many Freddie and Fannies do we need before it sinks in that direct mucking about in the free market, instead of trying to keep the field level, is a bad idea.
Oh, say hello to gennie mae:
http://www.istockanalyst.com/article...icleid/3410493