Let's see you get a letter acorss the country in a week for less than 50 cents. UPS and FedX can't - they get $5 for the smallest item. So much for off loading services to business!
First of all, Fedex and UPS are legally prevented from setting a rate below a certain number ( I don't remember what that is).
Secondly, Fedex and UPS are not allowed to deliver normal mail - only 'urgent packages'. That is why you see all the fancy mailers and boxes from them and not a simple envelope that will keep costs down.
Lastly, USPS uses Fedex to transport mail since it is cheaper.
Re:That's what you get... for not using FedEx
on
USPS Server Meltdown
·
· Score: 1
The same has been true with the USPS since 1970. Their entire budget is financed by people buying stamps and other services. They don't get a dime of taxpayer money.
Except, they get to charge an exorbitant amount for their stamps and services by prohibiting competition - a luxury that Fedex and UPS do not have. (If you think their costs are reasonable, then why is there a law the prohibiting Fedex/UPS from charging below a certain amount?)
They shouldn't be able to block my sale of my product! I can set any damn price I feel like setting, even as low as a penny, because *I* own it.
Unless you signed a contract with the manufacturer saying that you would do no such thing.
(Needless to say, didn't read tfa; have no idea if that is the case here).
I assume that since many people here support govt. regulation of industry and commerce, they should be all for this idea. I mean, if a complex system like the economy cannot function well without govt. regulation, a complex system like the internet cannot either.
And when you DON'T need a lawyer, you still need to pay a lawyer! Because they write laws that ensure that they get paid even when you don't need them.
(I needed some work done reg. my immigration and I approached a friend of mine who works as a paralegal. Even though the work was trivial and she was more than capable of doing it, she told me that it was illegal for her to do that as she was not a lawyer.)
Of course, that is assuming that there is some need to break up a 'monopoly' in the first place.
The other assumption is that there is a defined circle outside of which no competition takes place. Competition does not just exist within an industry; it exists across industries. The airlines have to compete with Webex. Google has to compete with NBC.
But keeping up with a small amount of national politics shouldn't be something that employers tell their employees is off limits at work.
Why not? From my perspective as an employer, it doesn't matter whether they watch stupid teenagers on youtube or equally stupid politicians on whitehouse.gov - every minute they spend on it is a minute where work is not getting done.
He was giving his opinion, not trying to prove something. So, he could not have been 'begging the question'.
And what is it that you want addressed reg. 1937? Net investment was down in the 30s and the capital stock of the nation was lower in 1940 than it had been in 1932. So, what's your point reg. 1937?
The government is responsible for managing the overall economy
Depends on the meaning of the word 'economy'. If the definition is 'millions of people interacting and providing services voluntarily to other people', then nobody needs to manage that. Indeed, nobody *can* manage that.
The point of bailing out the big 3 is to slow down the rate at which they dissolve, giving the 3 million people that are nearly directly dependent on them for employment more time to find other jobs, retrain or die.
And taking money from other productive enterprises to do so and causing unemployment in a 1000 other areas.
.....as the Government's bare-faced blank denials that there is a problem at all....It's difficult to treat a patient who won't even admit that he's ill.
The govt. is not the patient here. The govt is what is causing this decline in standards to begin with.
It was a terrible thing that she did and she should be punished for it,
Would you argue that she should be punished even if the young girl had just shrugged it off and got on with her life?
The punishment should be based on an act, not on somebody's reaction to that act. Either an action 'ABC' is a crime or it is not - that should not depend on someone's reaction to 'ABC'.
"Regulation" seems be an end unto itself. Any outcome is favorable so long as it constricts business growth.
Any outcome is favorable so long as it stops or reduces any activity that a 3rd party feels is immoral/unethical/insensitive/incorrect/wrong. The feelings of the 1st and 2nd party who are involved in an economic transaction do not matter.
This is why central banks scheme to cause low levels of inflation.
On the contrary, the only thing central banks do is cause high levels of inflation to facilitate govt. spending. The more honest ones claim that they have the analysts and systems to accurately know how much money to create. If that sort of thing was possible, then Soviet Russia would've been a great success.
If you start off making the assumption that individuals and companies cooperating among themselves to get a better price for their product is a crime, then you are not talking about the free market.
Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families:Barack Obama and Joe Biden will enact a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company profits to give American families an immediate $1,000 emergency energy rebate to help families pay rising bills.
In other words, to tackle a situation where production is low and consumption is high*, you tax the producers and increase consumption? Brilliant!
* - this was true 6 months ago; with the current gas prices, I'm not sure if politicians still want to rail against greedy oil companies.
Slashdot Mirror
The last mile is going to be a monopoly,
Why? Just because you cannot think of a way?
Let's see you get a letter acorss the country in a week for less than 50 cents. UPS and FedX can't - they get $5 for the smallest item. So much for off loading services to business!
First of all, Fedex and UPS are legally prevented from setting a rate below a certain number ( I don't remember what that is).
Secondly, Fedex and UPS are not allowed to deliver normal mail - only 'urgent packages'. That is why you see all the fancy mailers and boxes from them and not a simple envelope that will keep costs down.
Lastly, USPS uses Fedex to transport mail since it is cheaper.
Except, they get to charge an exorbitant amount for their stamps and services by prohibiting competition - a luxury that Fedex and UPS do not have. (If you think their costs are reasonable, then why is there a law the prohibiting Fedex/UPS from charging below a certain amount?)
They shouldn't be able to block my sale of my product! I can set any damn price I feel like setting, even as low as a penny, because *I* own it.
Unless you signed a contract with the manufacturer saying that you would do no such thing.
(Needless to say, didn't read tfa; have no idea if that is the case here).
I assume that since many people here support govt. regulation of industry and commerce, they should be all for this idea. I mean, if a complex system like the economy cannot function well without govt. regulation, a complex system like the internet cannot either.
When you need a lawyer, you NEED a lawyer!...
And when you DON'T need a lawyer, you still need to pay a lawyer! Because they write laws that ensure that they get paid even when you don't need them.
(I needed some work done reg. my immigration and I approached a friend of mine who works as a paralegal. Even though the work was trivial and she was more than capable of doing it, she told me that it was illegal for her to do that as she was not a lawyer.)
Of course, that is assuming that there is some need to break up a 'monopoly' in the first place.
The other assumption is that there is a defined circle outside of which no competition takes place. Competition does not just exist within an industry; it exists across industries. The airlines have to compete with Webex. Google has to compete with NBC.
But keeping up with a small amount of national politics shouldn't be something that employers tell their employees is off limits at work.
Why not? From my perspective as an employer, it doesn't matter whether they watch stupid teenagers on youtube or equally stupid politicians on whitehouse.gov - every minute they spend on it is a minute where work is not getting done.
He was giving his opinion, not trying to prove something. So, he could not have been 'begging the question'.
And what is it that you want addressed reg. 1937? Net investment was down in the 30s and the capital stock of the nation was lower in 1940 than it had been in 1932. So, what's your point reg. 1937?
The government is responsible for managing the overall economy
Depends on the meaning of the word 'economy'. If the definition is 'millions of people interacting and providing services voluntarily to other people', then nobody needs to manage that. Indeed, nobody *can* manage that.
The point of bailing out the big 3 is to slow down the rate at which they dissolve, giving the 3 million people that are nearly directly dependent on them for employment more time to find other jobs, retrain or die.
And taking money from other productive enterprises to do so and causing unemployment in a 1000 other areas.
.....as the Government's bare-faced blank denials that there is a problem at all....It's difficult to treat a patient who won't even admit that he's ill.
The govt. is not the patient here. The govt is what is causing this decline in standards to begin with.
It was a terrible thing that she did and she should be punished for it,
Would you argue that she should be punished even if the young girl had just shrugged it off and got on with her life?
The punishment should be based on an act, not on somebody's reaction to that act. Either an action 'ABC' is a crime or it is not - that should not depend on someone's reaction to 'ABC'.
Who did she kill? I read that the girl committed suicide, so again, who did Lori kill?
Yes, and that was the point I was making.
Did anyone seriously think that 2 students would be able to take on Yahoo and MS and win?
"Regulation" seems be an end unto itself. Any outcome is favorable so long as it constricts business growth.
Any outcome is favorable so long as it stops or reduces any activity that a 3rd party feels is immoral/unethical/insensitive/incorrect/wrong. The feelings of the 1st and 2nd party who are involved in an economic transaction do not matter.
This is why central banks scheme to cause low levels of inflation.
On the contrary, the only thing central banks do is cause high levels of inflation to facilitate govt. spending. The more honest ones claim that they have the analysts and systems to accurately know how much money to create. If that sort of thing was possible, then Soviet Russia would've been a great success.
If you start off making the assumption that individuals and companies cooperating among themselves to get a better price for their product is a crime, then you are not talking about the free market.
improper compensation.
What would be proper compensation? How would you define it? Who should define it?
If there is ever a situation where a windfall profits tax was desirable, it would seem to apply now.
Other than envy, anger and economic ignorance, do you have any other reasons to back that statement up?
So this the Obama admin's version of "Freedom isn't Free"?
Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families:Barack Obama and Joe Biden will enact a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company profits to give American families an immediate $1,000 emergency energy rebate to help families pay rising bills.
In other words, to tackle a situation where production is low and consumption is high*, you tax the producers and increase consumption? Brilliant!
* - this was true 6 months ago; with the current gas prices, I'm not sure if politicians still want to rail against greedy oil companies.
Now if anyone makes a Firefox plugin making it possible to do the same in a web browser that would be friggin awesome.
So, you don't use Emacs to browse the web?
So all I have to do to have a claim on your assets is to become utterly dependent on you?
And stop swearing, you fucking cunt.