3 ms·

And those kids keep coming back, because the US is comprised of a large/heterogenous population that isn’t really going away. Power has reliably flip-flopped ev

by bhupy 6y ago

And those kids keep coming back, because the US is comprised of a large/heterogenous population that isn’t really going away. Power has reliably flip-flopped every 4-8 years, and “the bad guys” have nearly always come back into power. Tying our goods & services to that strikes me as an odd basis for a system of government, and altogether discounting privatization as a solution to this strikes me as equally dogmatic as those that say blindly regurgitate “government can’t run services”.

shadowgovt 6y ago
But on the flip side, the same population that keeps voting for those "kids" runs some of the businesses, stores, etc. A good solution is probably a redundant solution, but pushing the solution too far towards only government versus privatization likely decreases the service that underserved populations can expect. Taking that generalization and concretizing it to the topic of a post office, there are several alternatives in the private sector already to USPS. but they don't serve the margins of the country like USPS does as per its constitutional mandate.
- bhupy 6y ago
  > A good solution is probably a redundant solution, but pushing the solution too far towards only government versus privatization likely decreases the service that underserved populations can expect. You hit the nail on the head: you need both public and private. I will push back on the idea that “privatization likely decreases the service that underserved populations can expect”, because that’s just not true for the other goods and services that rural people require (food, clothing, etc). If there’s a market need for something, it will be met at the fair market value for that thing — provided there are no exogenic barriers like regulation or endogenic barriers like monopolies/cartels. At best, you can probably make the case that rural areas will no longer receive subsidized service, but it’s worth asking ourselves if that’s even a desirable goal. And even if it is, it’s worth considering if nationalization is the best way to achieve subsidized rural delivery, or if direct subsidy or a UBI is the better way to achieve that, or perhaps even regulating the private carriers just like for eg food quality is regulated by the FDA. I’ll also add that the rural population is overwhelmingly the set of people who are aggressively voting for the kids peeing in the pool. > Taking that generalization and concretizing it to the topic of a post office, there are several alternatives in the private sector already to USPS Unfortunately this is not true. The USPS has a legislated monopoly on first class paper mail. UPS/FedEx/DHL/Amazon couldn’t send mail to a mailbox if they wanted to. Crucially, this means that mail-in ballots cannot be delivered by anyone except for the agency that a certain political party is trying to kneecap to suppress those very ballots — even if there is a market need for reliable ballot delivery.

by bhupy 6y ago

shadowgovt 6y ago

But on the flip side, the same population that keeps voting for those "kids" runs some of the businesses, stores, etc. A good solution is probably a redundant solution, but pushing the solution too far towards only government versus privatization likely decreases the service that underserved populations can expect. Taking that generalization and concretizing it to the topic of a post office, there are several alternatives in the private sector already to USPS. but they don't serve the margins of the country like USPS does as per its constitutional mandate.

bhupy 6y ago
> A good solution is probably a redundant solution, but pushing the solution too far towards only government versus privatization likely decreases the service that underserved populations can expect. You hit the nail on the head: you need both public and private. I will push back on the idea that “privatization likely decreases the service that underserved populations can expect”, because that’s just not true for the other goods and services that rural people require (food, clothing, etc). If there’s a market need for something, it will be met at the fair market value for that thing — provided there are no exogenic barriers like regulation or endogenic barriers like monopolies/cartels. At best, you can probably make the case that rural areas will no longer receive subsidized service, but it’s worth asking ourselves if that’s even a desirable goal. And even if it is, it’s worth considering if nationalization is the best way to achieve subsidized rural delivery, or if direct subsidy or a UBI is the better way to achieve that, or perhaps even regulating the private carriers just like for eg food quality is regulated by the FDA. I’ll also add that the rural population is overwhelmingly the set of people who are aggressively voting for the kids peeing in the pool. > Taking that generalization and concretizing it to the topic of a post office, there are several alternatives in the private sector already to USPS Unfortunately this is not true. The USPS has a legislated monopoly on first class paper mail. UPS/FedEx/DHL/Amazon couldn’t send mail to a mailbox if they wanted to. Crucially, this means that mail-in ballots cannot be delivered by anyone except for the agency that a certain political party is trying to kneecap to suppress those very ballots — even if there is a market need for reliable ballot delivery.