6 ms·

[flagged]

Afforess 2y ago
US military has no peer. USPS is very good, better and cheaper than UPS or FedEx. Wish antigovernment types didn’t lie and had actual complaints.
- rbanffy 2y ago
  > US military has no peer. That is debatable. What was the last war it won? > USPS is very good, better and cheaper than UPS or FedEx. Indeed, it's a lesson on how all universal services should be managed by democratically elected governments according to clear charters that ensure universality and affordability.
  - from-nibly 2y ago
    It's not affordable its subsidized.
    - triceratops 2y ago
      Nope. The USPS pays its own way. The only thing it gets from the government is a monopoly on putting things in people's mailboxes.
      - rbanffy 2y ago
        > The only thing it gets from the government is a monopoly on putting things in people's mailboxes. In exchange for that they have to attain some service levels others would consider unprofitable. Remember they need to be absolutely universal, however inconvenient for them.
      - from-nibly 2y ago
        WTH is this then? https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/3993213-the-imploding-us-postal-service-bailout/ https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/3993213-the-implod...
        triceratops 2y ago
        Interesting. It's clearly complicated. The tl;dr appears to be that Congress loves meddling in USPS affairs but requires it to pay its own way, and uses it as a political punching bag when it falls short. From the article you posted: "While state government workers and teachers have their pension and retiree health funds invested in a mix of stocks, bonds, and other quality assets, USPS, by law, can invest only in government bonds. USPS had $298 billion in such assets at the end of fiscal year 2022. Its inspector general estimated it could have had up to $1.2 trillion if it had diversified its investments as states do for government workers." So USPS is $900b short because of laws Congress passed, and now needs $100b in taxpayer assistance.
        from-nibly 2y ago
        Yeah that "if" is carrying a whooooole lota weight there. I could have been a billionaire if I invested more money in bitcoin back in 2008 too.
        reverius42 2y ago
        Ok, and if you had wanted to at the time, and Congress specifically prevented you from doing so, wouldn't you feel you deserve some compensation from Congress now?
        triceratops 2y ago
        Except it isn't Bitcoin it's index funds. If you already have it out for the USPS and believe it's useless then you won't care. But any reasonable person can see it's a meaningful difference.
  - adventured 2y ago
    > That is debatable. What was the last war it won? Iraq in 2003. Trivially stomped what was left of the Iraqi military and Saddam's entire government. There's a difference between a war and attempted nation building. And worth noting that nation building Iraq has not failed as of yet 20 years later. Iraq's GDP per capita is higher than Vietnam, Indonesia, Jordan, Egypt, Philippines, India, etc - which isn't horrible given what they have been through. What was the last war it lost? It didn't lose in Vietnam; it won every major engagement and along with South Vietnam held ~85% of territory when the US and South + North Vietnam signed a peace treaty and the US left. North Vietnam promptly ignored the treaty and resumed its conquest. Funny to pretend the US lost a war years after it left. It didn't lose in Afghanistan, the primary mission was to destroy bin Laden's Al Qaeda in Afghanistan (which was fully accomplished and bin Laden was killed). Nation building failed in Afghanistan, although the US was able to easily hold the core of the country with sub 30,000 soldiers and could have technically stayed forever (but it was pointless).
    - esafak 2y ago
      Remind us, who's running Afghanistan today?
    - meiraleal 2y ago
      10 trillion dollars to "win" against Iraq and Vietnam. I guess it is still debatable.
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        Endlessly debatable what counts as a win, and over what timeframe. Did the North win the Civil War? In 1865, that answer was fairly clear. In 2024, perhaps less so. I suspect 1870s Americans would be a little surprised that Confederate flags and monuments pop up all over in the 20th and 21st centuries.
        rbanffy 2y ago
        Did the Allies win WWII? Not sure, because nazi flags keep popping up everywhere, including presidential rallies in the United States. I wonder whether conclusive victories against the worst of our natures isn’t feasible.
  - tialaramex 2y ago
    > That is debatable. What was the last war it won? Because war is the continuation of politics by other means, the objectives of a war, and thus the criteria by which we can determine if it was won, are set by politicians. Unless your country's politicians are the military this means that your military has no way to win wars unless politicians have chosen winnable criteria. Corporate - the British operation to take back the Falklands is an example of a clear political objective, set by a politician (Margaret Thatcher, the UK Prime Minister) and achievable by military force. If the British kill millions of Argentinians, but must fall back and cede the island, Corporate fails. If the Argentinians shit themselves and run off once the carrier fleet sets sail, Corporate has succeeded with little loss of life. As it happens the British invaded the Falklands on foot, at considerable cost in men, but they won the day, the Falklands remains very much British. When American politicians set vague objectives, or none at all, it is not the fault of the military when the war does not succeed.
- 93po 2y ago
  US military spends $20 billion a year on air conditioning. Just because we outspend everyone and have for decades doesn't mean we're the best, it just means we're the rich kids who can fail upwards in life
ceejayoz 2y ago
Boeing already went to shit. We're in shit cleanup phase.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  Are we? We should be. But are we?

[flagged]

US military has no peer. USPS is very good, better and cheaper than UPS or FedEx. Wish antigovernment types didn’t lie and had actual complaints.

rbanffy 2y ago
> US military has no peer. That is debatable. What was the last war it won? > USPS is very good, better and cheaper than UPS or FedEx. Indeed, it's a lesson on how all universal services should be managed by democratically elected governments according to clear charters that ensure universality and affordability.
- from-nibly 2y ago
  It's not affordable its subsidized.
  - triceratops 2y ago
    Nope. The USPS pays its own way. The only thing it gets from the government is a monopoly on putting things in people's mailboxes.
    - rbanffy 2y ago
      > The only thing it gets from the government is a monopoly on putting things in people's mailboxes. In exchange for that they have to attain some service levels others would consider unprofitable. Remember they need to be absolutely universal, however inconvenient for them.
    - from-nibly 2y ago
      WTH is this then? https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/3993213-the-imploding-us-postal-service-bailout/ https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/3993213-the-implod...
      - triceratops 2y ago
        Interesting. It's clearly complicated. The tl;dr appears to be that Congress loves meddling in USPS affairs but requires it to pay its own way, and uses it as a political punching bag when it falls short. From the article you posted: "While state government workers and teachers have their pension and retiree health funds invested in a mix of stocks, bonds, and other quality assets, USPS, by law, can invest only in government bonds. USPS had $298 billion in such assets at the end of fiscal year 2022. Its inspector general estimated it could have had up to $1.2 trillion if it had diversified its investments as states do for government workers." So USPS is $900b short because of laws Congress passed, and now needs $100b in taxpayer assistance.
        from-nibly 2y ago
        Yeah that "if" is carrying a whooooole lota weight there. I could have been a billionaire if I invested more money in bitcoin back in 2008 too.
        reverius42 2y ago
        Ok, and if you had wanted to at the time, and Congress specifically prevented you from doing so, wouldn't you feel you deserve some compensation from Congress now?
        triceratops 2y ago
        Except it isn't Bitcoin it's index funds. If you already have it out for the USPS and believe it's useless then you won't care. But any reasonable person can see it's a meaningful difference.
- adventured 2y ago
  > That is debatable. What was the last war it won? Iraq in 2003. Trivially stomped what was left of the Iraqi military and Saddam's entire government. There's a difference between a war and attempted nation building. And worth noting that nation building Iraq has not failed as of yet 20 years later. Iraq's GDP per capita is higher than Vietnam, Indonesia, Jordan, Egypt, Philippines, India, etc - which isn't horrible given what they have been through. What was the last war it lost? It didn't lose in Vietnam; it won every major engagement and along with South Vietnam held ~85% of territory when the US and South + North Vietnam signed a peace treaty and the US left. North Vietnam promptly ignored the treaty and resumed its conquest. Funny to pretend the US lost a war years after it left. It didn't lose in Afghanistan, the primary mission was to destroy bin Laden's Al Qaeda in Afghanistan (which was fully accomplished and bin Laden was killed). Nation building failed in Afghanistan, although the US was able to easily hold the core of the country with sub 30,000 soldiers and could have technically stayed forever (but it was pointless).
  - esafak 2y ago
    Remind us, who's running Afghanistan today?
  - meiraleal 2y ago
    10 trillion dollars to "win" against Iraq and Vietnam. I guess it is still debatable.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      Endlessly debatable what counts as a win, and over what timeframe. Did the North win the Civil War? In 1865, that answer was fairly clear. In 2024, perhaps less so. I suspect 1870s Americans would be a little surprised that Confederate flags and monuments pop up all over in the 20th and 21st centuries.
      - rbanffy 2y ago
        Did the Allies win WWII? Not sure, because nazi flags keep popping up everywhere, including presidential rallies in the United States. I wonder whether conclusive victories against the worst of our natures isn’t feasible.
- tialaramex 2y ago
  > That is debatable. What was the last war it won? Because war is the continuation of politics by other means, the objectives of a war, and thus the criteria by which we can determine if it was won, are set by politicians. Unless your country's politicians are the military this means that your military has no way to win wars unless politicians have chosen winnable criteria. Corporate - the British operation to take back the Falklands is an example of a clear political objective, set by a politician (Margaret Thatcher, the UK Prime Minister) and achievable by military force. If the British kill millions of Argentinians, but must fall back and cede the island, Corporate fails. If the Argentinians shit themselves and run off once the carrier fleet sets sail, Corporate has succeeded with little loss of life. As it happens the British invaded the Falklands on foot, at considerable cost in men, but they won the day, the Falklands remains very much British. When American politicians set vague objectives, or none at all, it is not the fault of the military when the war does not succeed.
93po 2y ago
US military spends $20 billion a year on air conditioning. Just because we outspend everyone and have for decades doesn't mean we're the best, it just means we're the rich kids who can fail upwards in life

ceejayoz 2y ago

Boeing already went to shit. We're in shit cleanup phase.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
Are we? We should be. But are we?