I have some genuine questions. | Bitcointalksearch.org

Jalum

hero member

Activity: 774

Merit: 500

Look ARROUND!

Quote from: ALPHA. on November 14, 2011, 04:28:29 PM

If private services are inherently exploitative and usurious for their clients, then why did this one manage to provide free service for local patrons while providing cheaper rates for long-distance services?

How did it manage to out-compete the oh-so conscious "public offering" before it was unconstitutionally shut down by its government counterpart, for no reason other than to arbitrarily preserve the relevance of the "public offering"?

What makes postal service different from any other "public good"? Why did it empirically thrive for the public and itself as a "private good"?

Why do <95% of goods and services thrive as "private goods", while only a few supposedly don't other than because of obstacles currently faced by the "public offerings"? Why can't innovation found in the private sector innovate past these supposed obstacles that can only be purportedly solved by government?

Have you ever heard the term "straw man argument"?

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: Matthew N. Wright on November 14, 2011, 10:16:32 PM

Quote from: Hawker on November 14, 2011, 05:07:00 PM

I suspect that it was because the arrival of rail-roads upended the old logistics systems and the state post office was caught flat footed. State run systems are often slow to react to changes.

Quote from: Rassah on November 14, 2011, 05:40:02 PM

Because for that to happen, A LOT of pain would first have to happen, and people don't like pain. It's much like the argument of letting the market totally crash and quickly rebound in 2008, versus supporting it but having it linger for years. Like with the market, I guess people prefer slow and dull pain of slow steady growth to sharp and extreme pain of wild swings (even if the end result of the sharp swing gets you way higher than the slow and dull). I guess in some way it also has a lot to do with the majority's risk aversion, something so genetically ingrained that it can't really be "fixed"

It's amazing to see the contrast of responses between rational minds and conspiracy theorists.

Would I be disclosing my lack of sanity by admitting I don't know which one you are reffering to as "conspiracy theorist?"
Or would I be pointing out a lack of yours because neither of these two are particularly conspiratorial?
Huh

Fyi, my post was pretty focused on just answering the very last question. Maybe I should've made that more clear.

Matthew N. Wright

hero member

Activity: 588

Merit: 500

Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet

Quote from: Hawker on November 14, 2011, 05:07:00 PM

I suspect that it was because the arrival of rail-roads upended the old logistics systems and the state post office was caught flat footed. State run systems are often slow to react to changes.

Quote from: Rassah on November 14, 2011, 05:40:02 PM

Because for that to happen, A LOT of pain would first have to happen, and people don't like pain. It's much like the argument of letting the market totally crash and quickly rebound in 2008, versus supporting it but having it linger for years. Like with the market, I guess people prefer slow and dull pain of slow steady growth to sharp and extreme pain of wild swings (even if the end result of the sharp swing gets you way higher than the slow and dull). I guess in some way it also has a lot to do with the majority's risk aversion, something so genetically ingrained that it can't really be "fixed"

It's amazing to see the contrast of responses between rational minds and conspiracy theorists.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Because for that to happen, A LOT of pain would first have to happen, and people don't like pain. It's much like the argument of letting the market totally crash and quickly rebound in 2008, versus supporting it but having it linger for years. Like with the market, I guess people prefer slow and dull pain of slow steady growth to sharp and extreme pain of wild swings (even if the end result of the sharp swing gets you way higher than the slow and dull). I guess in some way it also has a lot to do with the majority's risk aversion, something so genetically ingrained that it can't really be "fixed"

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

I suspect that it was because the arrival of rail-roads upended the old logistics systems and the state post office was caught flat footed. State run systems are often slow to react to changes.

ALPHA.

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Letter_Mail_Company

If private services are inherently exploitative and usurious for their clients, then why did this one manage to provide free service for local patrons while providing cheaper rates for long-distance services?

How did it manage to out-compete the oh-so conscious "public offering" before it was unconstitutionally shut down by its government counterpart, for no reason other than to arbitrarily preserve the relevance of the "public offering"?

What makes postal service different from any other "public good"? Why did it empirically thrive for the public and itself as a "private good"?

Why do <95% of goods and services thrive as "private goods", while only a few supposedly don't other than because of obstacles currently faced by the "public offerings"? Why can't innovation found in the private sector innovate past these supposed obstacles that can only be purportedly solved by government?

Topic: I have some genuine questions. (Read 1014 times)