Dancin_In_Anson: lajimi: I don't much care for $4.00+ a gallon gas and these greedy bastiges jumping the price whenever they feel like it.

Then don't buy it.

Oh I was not aware that they taught complex economics such as that in Douche bag school. You must have studied hard.

Wow, I wish I took economics where that d-bag did. Obama is in Big Oils pocket just like the rest of them.

NaziKamikaze: Dancin_In_Anson: Bukharin: Is there a better way to send a sheet of paper cross country for 40-something cents?

No, but there are ways that are profitable and don't require massive government subsidy.

Why should the postal service be profitable? It should do what it does satisfactorily and on budget. It's not a business, but it's necessary to a nation.

because if they are not profitable then they are stealing my money for something I don't want and could be better served by privatization. Lets pay to have a service that feeds the ducks. hey.. 'its providing a service'! Really, the biggest problem is how the laws block privatization now.

Marley'sGirl: Why isn't oil regulated like natural gas? As a utility company, a gas company's rates can only charge enough to make a 'reasonable profit.' The state Public Utilities Commission determines these rates.
While gasoline is not provided as a utility to your home, I think a fossil fuel that the majority of the population consumes on a normal day would qualify as one.

Yeah. Since everyone in the country relies on gasoline to keep their daily lives going one would think that it should be treated more like a necessity rather than a luxury. Someone once told me its the oil futures market that makes the price at the pump so high. The government should regulate that or something.

Dancin_In_Anson: Bukharin: Is there a better way to send a sheet of paper cross country for 40-something cents?

No, but there are ways that are profitable and don't require massive government subsidy.

SkittlesAreYum: Dancin_In_Anson: Bukharin: Is there a better way to send a sheet of paper cross country for 40-something cents?

No, but there are ways that are profitable and don't require massive government subsidy.

I'm pretty sure the postal service has not received taxpayer funding since around 1980. Is this not the case?

matt2891: Dancin_In_Anson: Bukharin: Is there a better way to send a sheet of paper cross country for 40-something cents?

No, but there are ways that are profitable and don't require massive government subsidy.

Someone once put it like this to me: If you privatized the mail completely, chances are large areas of the country would not be able to get any mail what so ever. Because there is not enough demand in some place for a company to send mail there and be profitable, hence if it was a private company the solution would be simple:don't send mail there. So, yes, the post office does lose money, but the trade off is that you have a wider availability of service than you would with a private carrier.


You all fail. Well not Skittles, but the rest of you.

The post office receives exactly $0.00 in taxpayer money each year. This has been the case for some years now. I don't have the materials with me or I'd cite one of their internal docs on how all this works. It is most emphatically NOT subsidized. It is also NOT a federal organization in the way that CIA is. It is also NOT a traditional non-profit organization in the way that my current employer is (which is allowed to generate as much revenue as it likes, and then use that revenue as it pleases--but it's non-profit because we don't have shareholders to pay out to, and so the monies are typically folded back into the company to further our social mission). The USPS works on a much tighter and more difficult model: they are mandated to remain revenue neutral over a three year time period. I don't know all the details of this, but essentially they have to make sure that there are NO profits and NO losses. This must also be done while delivering mail to all those excessively rural locations.

You want efficiency? I'm sorry, but the USPS is pretty darn good at what they do, and I'm glad that it exists. When you look at the rate at which stamps have gone up in prices, you must realize that given the cost of a stamp in the early 1900s and relative inflation rates, I think the post office has done a good job of keeping prices way down.

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

All in all? That's pretty impressive. Inflation adjusted rates for 1863 were HIGHER than inflation adjust rates for 2008 (it's a very very marginal difference, but all things considered, it's impressive). Also note that the inflation adjusted rate for additional ounces is MUCH lower now than in past years. Post card rates started low, but have stabilized.

If we had the same model for gas, would most of us be happy? Actually, no matter how you slice it, gas prices have been pretty flat once you adjust for inflation:

http://www.randomuseless.info/gasprice/gasprice.html

(feel free to do your own google search).

So is the free market doing better/worse than the heavily price controlled quasi-federal agency? From where I sit, it looks pretty close. Funny that.

Tavernknight: Someone once told me its the oil futures market that makes the price at the pump so high.

Ding ding.

starfliz: lajimi: Dancin_In_Anson: lajimi: Maybe it's time to nationalize the oil industry.

If you like the postal service, you'll love nationalized oil.

I don't much care for $4.00+ a gallon gas and these greedy bastiges jumping the price whenever they feel like it.

so you rather subsidize government oil by having the government steal the 4 dollars from your paycheck and spend it poorly then also pay 2 dollars at the pump. yes.. that is a brilliant scheme to have your money stolen from you. genius!

The USPS is not subsidized by the government. Their prices are pretty damn fair, more like 50 cents a gallon.

Not all government agencies are inefficient, and anyway the USPS is not a government agency.

starfliz: NaziKamikaze: Dancin_In_Anson: Bukharin: Is there a better way to send a sheet of paper cross country for 40-something cents?

No, but there are ways that are profitable and don't require massive government subsidy.

Why should the postal service be profitable? It should do what it does satisfactorily and on budget. It's not a business, but it's necessary to a nation.

because if they are not profitable then they are stealing my money for something I don't want and could be better served by privatization. Lets pay to have a service that feeds the ducks. hey.. 'its providing a service'! Really, the biggest problem is how the laws block privatization now.

Uh, Fedex? DHL? UPS?

Man, the stupid is strong with you.

justtray: Oh it's logical economics. Gas is an inelastic good. This means that as the price goes up, demand doesn't drop proportionately, and thus profits increase.

In other words, they raise the prices because they can.



You know not what inelastic means.
The mere fact that quantity demanded has retracted significantly *after* the price went way up says that it in fact is not inelastic.

Granted gasoline may have a *higher* inelasticity than other goods, but to categorically say it is "an inelastic good" given what has happened the last 8 - 10 months is just patently wrong.

starfliz: NaziKamikaze: Dancin_In_Anson: Bukharin: Is there a better way to send a sheet of paper cross country for 40-something cents?

No, but there are ways that are profitable and don't require massive government subsidy.

Why should the postal service be profitable? It should do what it does satisfactorily and on budget. It's not a business, but it's necessary to a nation.

because if they are not profitable then they are stealing my money for something I don't want and could be better served by privatization. Lets pay to have a service that feeds the ducks. hey.. 'its providing a service'! Really, the biggest problem is how the laws block privatization now.

Learn to read, you farking moron. The USPS hasn't been subsidized since the EIGHTIES. TWO DECADES AGO. They are also a federally-regulated PRIVATE organization.

Everything you say is just a pile of dumb. You know that?

Shadowknight: CowboyNinjaD: It's not his fault. He's just making the typical, cliche, anti-government argument.

Like people who argue against a national health care system by comparing it to the DMV. You know, I've been a licensed driver since 1996. I think I've only had to go an actual office two or three times. I went once to get my temporary license and another time to take my test and get my real license.

Then I moved to another state in 2003 and had to physically go to an office to get my picture taken for my new license. Other than that, everything has been through the mail or over the Internet.

So yeah, the DMV, a true model of inefficiency.

The DMV here in Virginia can be pretty atrocious, but I think it has more to do with the workers than the government involvement. They seem to hate the fact that their entire job is set up around giving everyone a hard time, pushing paperwork, and taking bad pictures while people blink.

But as you said, I can do almost everything online these days, once you're in the system, so it's not that painful anymore.


When I moved to Florida (the worst place in the world as far as Fark is concerned), they actually let me make an appointment to get my license changed over. So I show up, get my picture taken, take an eye exam and they hand me my new license. The whole thing took about 10 minutes.

I've moved several times within the state since then, and every time I need to get a new card or update my registration, I do it over the Internet.

I'm sure there are valid reasons for actually going into the DMV offices but I suspect that 90 percent of the people there are just old, foreign or stupid.

Doc Daneeka: Dancin_In_Anson: lajimi: Maybe it's time to nationalize the oil industry.

If you like the postal service, you'll love nationalized oil.

I like the post office. They're generally on-time and reliable, and the price is right.

As for subsidies, I know that I read somewhere that government subsidies only amount to a miniscule percentage of the USPS budget.

And the biggest subsidies go to massive corporations in agriculture, mining, and petro-chemicals or energy (oil).

But seriously, it's them welfare queens in designer jeans that be suckin' us dry - oh, and the Mayheecan'ts.

/more white folks on welfare than others
//yeah, there are more white folks, but still, more white welfare queens than any other type
///Dancin in ansin needs to start readin'in ansin

Also if the damn oil companies have record profits again then I don't think I can handle it. I may very well snap and have to start setting poo filled flaming bags on oil trader's doorsteps again.

starfliz: so you rather subsidize government oil by having the government steal the 4 dollars from your paycheck and spend it poorly then also pay 2 dollars at the pump. yes.. that is a brilliant scheme to have your money stolen from you. genius!

Do you really believe that government agents are going to punch you in the stomach and take your money from you? That seems a bit nutty to me. You seem like the "black helicopter" type.

Prohest: SCUM SUCKING PIGZ

End the dependency on oil NOW!!

Oil is used to make plastic and practically every component in your CPU. Let me see you get online with a computer made out of leaves and figs. You have a one-track mind, oil is much more than a fuel, dummy.

Let 'em raise it as much as they want but then start making them pay their fair share of taxes. Then most of the money they make just goes back to us anyway.

Nightsweat: Uh, Fedex? DHL? UPS?

To be fair, DHL is the German Post office. 35.5% state owned.

Good. I hope demand never recovers.

JMMODE: Prohest: SCUM SUCKING PIGZ

End the dependency on oil NOW!!

Oil is used to make plastic and practically every component in your CPU. Let me see you get online with a computer made out of leaves and figs. You have a one-track mind, oil is much more than a fuel, dummy.

My schematic calls for a box of string

NaziKamikaze: Bukharin: Dancin_In_Anson: No, but there are ways that are profitable and don't require massive government subsidy.

Yes. The post office knows all about them.

http://www.nalc.org/postal/perform/productivity.html

"...But direct subsidies to the USPS were phased out between 1972 and 1982. Today the USPS is funded entirely by revenues from postage."

http://multichannelmerchant.com/news/USPS_profit_120705/

"The U.S. Postal Service concluded fiscal 2005 with a net income of $1.4 billion on record revenue of $70 billion and record volume of 212 billion mail pieces."

Thanks for doing the work I wasn't willing to.

Seriously, is DIA like this in every thread? I can't figure out if he's the greatest troll ever or just that stupid.

/Post retarded shiat
//Post even more retarded shiat to responses to the Boobies
///Run away when an actual argument is presented


I vote stupid....and grossly misinformed about most things.
And most of the time too much of a chickenshiat to come back to the threads and take it like a man when he is abundantly proven wrong.

Funk Brothers: Look I own stock in ExxonMobil, the price has flatline in the last year. They need to raise gas prices so they can be to improve their quality in stock and be able to pay dividends to their stock owners.

I need to put gold on our tables every night and you dumb farks decided to stop consuming. No wonder the country is going down the tubes while China is not.

Go on a spending binge.

First, government agents are stealing our money. Now people are saying that our country is going down the tubes while China is not? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that China can't afford tubes to go down into when they fall on hard times.

What really bugged me about the Obama plan to raise the MPG was the fact that car companies were just like "ok, no problem" like it was no big deal.

First off, if it's no big deal, why didn't they do it before, other than their obvious ties to the oil industry?

Second, if those ratings are so "easy" to meet, make it 45mpg and all cars and light trucks are required to be hybrid vehicles as well. Seriously, why limit it at 35 mpg, which is a farce EPA rating anyway. No one will actually GET 35mpg, more like 28 if the current rules are the same.

darksarin: Dancin_In_Anson: Bukharin: Is there a better way to send a sheet of paper cross country for 40-something cents?

No, but there are ways that are profitable and don't require massive government subsidy.

SkittlesAreYum: Dancin_In_Anson: Bukharin: Is there a better way to send a sheet of paper cross country for 40-something cents?

No, but there are ways that are profitable and don't require massive government subsidy.

I'm pretty sure the postal service has not received taxpayer funding since around 1980. Is this not the case?

matt2891: Dancin_In_Anson: Bukharin: Is there a better way to send a sheet of paper cross country for 40-something cents?

No, but there are ways that are profitable and don't require massive government subsidy.

Someone once put it like this to me: If you privatized the mail completely, chances are large areas of the country would not be able to get any mail what so ever. Because there is not enough demand in some place for a company to send mail there and be profitable, hence if it was a private company the solution would be simple:don't send mail there. So, yes, the post office does lose money, but the trade off is that you have a wider availability of service than you would with a private carrier.


You all fail. Well not Skittles, but the rest of you.

The post office receives exactly $0.00 in taxpayer money each year. This has been the case for some years now. I don't have the materials with me or I'd cite one of their internal docs on how all this works. It is most emphatically NOT subsidized. It is also NOT a federal organization in the way that CIA is. It is also NOT a traditional non-profit organization in the way that my current employer is (which is allowed to generate as much revenue as it likes, and then use that revenue as it pleases--but it's non-profit because we don't have shareholders to pay out to, and so the monies are typically folded back into the company to further our social mission). The USPS works on a much tighter and more difficult model: they are mandated to remain revenue neutral over a three year time period. I don't know all the details of this, but essentially they have to make sure that there are NO profits and NO losses. This must also be done while delivering mail to all those excessively rural locations.

You want efficiency? I'm sorry, but the USPS is pretty darn good at what they do, and I'm glad that it exists. When you look at the rate at which stamps have gone up in prices, you must realize that given the cost of a stamp in the early 1900s and relative inflation rates, I think the post office has done a good job of keeping prices way down.

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

All in all? That's pretty impressive. Inflation adjusted rates for 1863 were HIGHER than inflation adjust rates for 2008 (it's a very very marginal difference, but all things considered, it's impressive). Also note that the inflation adjusted rate for additional ounces is MUCH lower now than in past years. Post card rates started low, but have stabilized.

If we had the same model for gas, would most of us be happy? Actually, no matter how you slice it, gas prices have been pretty flat once you adjust for inflation:

http://www.randomuseless.info/gasprice/gasprice.html

(feel free to do your own google search).

So is the free market doing better/worse than the heavily price controlled quasi-federal agency? From where I sit, it looks pretty close. Funny that.

I wasn't arguing against the USPS. Im actually very much for it. I was just saying that if it was totally private, then there would be sections of the country that wouldn't recieve mail due to low demand. The fact that the USPS is self-sustaining is just icing on the cake.

Dancin_In_Anson: Maybe it's time to nationalize the oil industry.

If you like the postal service, you'll love nationalized oil.

maybe they'll have the forever gallon. wait, what?

So demand is down and supply is up, yet prices are being driven up? Sounds to me that some speculators are setting themselves up to lose a chunk of money.

ihatedumbpeople: What really bugged me about the Obama plan to raise the MPG was the fact that car companies were just like "ok, no problem" like it was no big deal.

First off, if it's no big deal, why didn't they do it before, other than their obvious ties to the oil industry?

Second, if those ratings are so "easy" to meet, make it 45mpg and all cars and light trucks are required to be hybrid vehicles as well. Seriously, why limit it at 35 mpg, which is a farce EPA rating anyway. No one will actually GET 35mpg, more like 28 if the current rules are the same.

I think it's a combination of profitability and desperation. All the car companies are hurting now, even foreign cars. Toyota asked Japan for a bailout. You never hear about it because people are two busy drooling onto their keyboards while ranting about how the UAW is single-handedly sending all of our jobs over seas.

I think that they're accepting so that, if they fail, they can point at the government and say that it was their idea anyway. They certainly have tried anything else. Nothing to lose, everything to gain.

JMMODE: Prohest: SCUM SUCKING PIGZ

End the dependency on oil NOW!!

Oil is used to make plastic and practically every component in your CPU. Let me see you get online with a computer made out of leaves and figs. You have a one-track mind, oil is much more than a fuel, dummy.

On a past fark thread someone made the comment that future generations are going to look back at us as a bunch of farking idiots cause we've been burning one of the most versatile building materials around. I guess it'd be like if we found fossil evidence that cavemen ate wood rather than built shelter/made tools with it.

Also, usually when people say our dependency on oil, they're generally talking about our use of oil as a fuel. And I'm sorry, thats just good sense, whether you agree with it for environmental, economic, or political reasons.

Funk Brothers: Not only that, but Obama stole my bike.

What you did there. I would see it, but Mike Tyson punched me out and broke my glasses.

Inescapable Future of Humanity: starfliz: so you rather subsidize government oil by having the government steal the 4 dollars from your paycheck and spend it poorly then also pay 2 dollars at the pump. yes.. that is a brilliant scheme to have your money stolen from you. genius!

Do you really believe that government agents are going to punch you in the stomach and take your money from you? That seems a bit nutty to me. You seem like the "black helicopter" type.

I'll feed the troll, as this smacks of just enough idealism to be real.

Yes, I will gladly pay the government to be inefficient and steal my money - that is a far better alternative than continuing to support Exxon, Shell, and all the nasty companies that suck off them (KBR, Halliburton, etc.). They steal my money and are inefficient, too. But when push comes to shove I can organize my neighbors and boot out my elected reps, start a blog and try to convince others to do the same, and maybe after a few years get laws passed and maybe even reverse the whole policy. With Exxon - they will have the tax-funded state arrest and toss me in jail if I try to protest directly against them or organize at their private locations. The oil companies have had decades to shape up and instead have chosen to loot us.

Time's up.

GoodyearPimp: lajimi: I don't much care for $4.00+ a gallon gas and these greedy bastiges jumping the price whenever they feel like it.

Why wouldn't they *always* feel like it?

they know not to cause true public outrage. increases have to be gradual.

I really can't wait until there is an affordable, practical electric car. Yes, I'll still keep one of my gas-powered cars for longer trips and such, but 99% of my driving will be electric and then I can have the satisfaction of telling the oil companies to kiss my ass.

Let's ignore the fact that taxes were raised on gasoline, subby.

Funk Brothers: Not only that, but Obama stole my bike.

Kanyon: I took this pic at a local gas station last August. It seems appropriate.

/sorry you may have to squint
//damn picture size limits

It might help if you cropped the picture, and used a lower quality setting (higher .jpeg compression) on the pics before you post them. That's how some folks can post huge looking pics and still have them under the limits. Or, you can put the numbers from the pic in your post.
/graphic artist
//scary numbers

JMMODE: Prohest: SCUM SUCKING PIGZ

End the dependency on oil NOW!!

Oil is used to make plastic and practically every component in your CPU. Let me see you get online with a computer made out of leaves and figs. You have a one-track mind, oil is much more than a fuel, dummy.

One of my favorite arguments.

Please, tell us professor, how much oil does it take to make 100 plastic bags? how bout 100 microchips? How bout 100 frames for monitors?

Ok... how many bags, chips, monitors can we make with the oil from one fuel tank of one average sized SUV?

No one in their right mind says "go back to the stone age". But I think most say, "let's stop burning this stuff and instead use it more wisely and efficiently". One day, when oil becomes really scarce from using it in cars, your nightmare of a hippy controlled world will be real, and you will be the one to cause it.

partisan222: I'll feed the troll, as this smacks of just enough idealism to be real.

Hey, don't quote me! I was just wondering what the hell he meant by the government 'stealing' from him. Does he have to walk around with special tinfoil pants that prevent the government from getting their money stealing radiowaves into his pockets?

What a fantastic name for an oil expert! Tex Pitfield!

///The environmental lobby welcomes it's alternative energy expert, Sol Ruufpower!

Inescapable Future of Humanity: partisan222: I'll feed the troll, as this smacks of just enough idealism to be real.

Hey, don't quote me! I was just wondering what the hell he meant by the government 'stealing' from him. Does he have to walk around with special tinfoil pants that prevent the government from getting their money stealing radiowaves into his pockets?

you're all trolls

As of yesterday. The car companies biatched they will not be able to sell the new fuel efficient cars unless gas prices are 4 dollars a gallon again. SO-testing in one to three...
/wonders when I turned into a female Dale Gribble.

partisan222: you're all trolls

I'm not a Troll. I'm more of a forum goblin.

Inescapable Future of Humanity: I'm not a Troll. I'm more of a forum goblin.

I'm a pants gnome.

partisan222: JMMODE: Prohest: SCUM SUCKING PIGZ

End the dependency on oil NOW!!

Oil is used to make plastic and practically every component in your CPU. Let me see you get online with a computer made out of leaves and figs. You have a one-track mind, oil is much more than a fuel, dummy.

One of my favorite arguments.

Please, tell us professor, how much oil does it take to make 100 plastic bags? how bout 100 microchips? How bout 100 frames for monitors?

Ok... how many bags, chips, monitors can we make with the oil from one fuel tank of one average sized SUV?

No one in their right mind says "go back to the stone age". But I think most say, "let's stop burning this stuff and instead use it more wisely and efficiently". One day, when oil becomes really scarce from using it in cars, your nightmare of a hippy controlled world will be real, and you will be the one to cause it.

Also makes for a good reason not to get rid of the limited supply of oil we have. The Drill Baby Drill crowd wanted to burn it up yesterday. Use the foreign oil first and ours becomes even more valuable.

Bukharin: Is there a better way to send a sheet of paper cross country for 40-something cents?

They have this new invention called a fax machine. You may have heard of it.