From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Not about Amy or her whereabouts
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 15:52:54 GMT

In <1992Jul25.213221.22065@deeptht.armory.com>, rstevew@deeptht.armory.com
(Richard Steven Walz) writes:

>Clayton, I do resent the implication that is always made about the
>postal system. Other than the net, another government "boondoggle",
>there is no faster way to get information or one ounce or more across
>the continent and a few other places for 29 cents!!! No private system
>has been able to match that. And the postal system charges only its
>cost, it is non-profit.

I, for one, don't complain about paying 29 cents to send something 3000 miles.
The Postal Service is actually one of the better pseudo-Government functions.
However, I think that private enterprise *could* provide better service at a
lower price if, like the USPS, they had huge economies of scale and a 99%
market share. It's simple economics:  higher volume = lower cost per unit.

>People, usually stupid republicans, (an equality there), will alway
>try to make the government out to be inept and overly costly.

"Stupid Republicans" is an equality?  First of all, I think the word
"redundancy" would make more sense to an irrational partisan such as yourself.
That notion is pure BS.  There are stupid Republicans, just as there are stupid
Democrats, stupid Libertarians, and stupid independents.  You give no credi-
bility to yourself by revealing obvious political agendas rather than talking
about common sense and decency. I have already conceded that government can
provide useful services even if they are unconsitutional.  And I'm willing to
live with them.  Why?  Common sense.  My agenda is what I feel is best for the
nation, not blind adherence to some ideology.

>But it is private contractors who are often indicted later who make and ply
>these over priced toilet seats and hammers to the military, and the
>laws that the people's representatives make have no choice but to
>accept the package that industry serves them up, even though they know
>that every one of those private suckers is ripping the people off.

Now tell me why contractors working for the "private" (i.e. non-government)
sector *never* get charged $500 for a hammer.  This includes government
contractors which charge the Air Force $500 for a hammer they sell for $15
to a private airline.  Also, the Pentagon often works with precise requirements
for their parts, and if a hammer varies *even slightly* from their specs, the
contractor must specially tool them to match.  This is well known and well
documented.  That isn't corporate greed; it's Pentagon stupidity.  I will
admit that gross overcharging does happen and is a problem.  But why is it a
problem unique to contracts in which the government is the client?

>It takes the people to instigate a full fledged witch hunt to find out
>about this corruption and to make laws that will confiscate whole
>businesses and the homes of convicted executives responsible before we
>have an honest private sector that we can protect the public sector
>from being abused by. If it were me I'd chop off their hands for
>bilking the public. I don't even go for the death penalty for private
>murder, but for public governmental malicious conduct I could go as
>far as drawing and quartering easy!

What about "malicious conduct" and "bilking the public" done BY the government
and not TO the government?  Can you say "Congress?"  You should see the
article in the new (August 1992) issue of _Money_ where the escalating cost
of Congress is exposed.  Do you still want more government?

>As for the military, it is often true that we have to have people
>watching the contractors at our cost and who keep track of exactly how
>many hammers we have and how to move them around the world fast. That
>kind of support for a lowly hammer is bound to raise its overall cost.

True.  And so do ridiculous, inflexible Pentagon specifications and
requirements.

>And to make sure it works they simply buy the best and the one which
>probably had to be specially made to the government spec. That sort of
>less than mass production has always been more expensive. But it's
>better than finding broken K-Mart hammers all over Iraq!

Not necessarily.  Even if a $500 hammer lasts 20 times longer than a $5 K-Mart
hammer, which is more cost-effective?

>There are ways to defeat the quality versus cost problem, but they all
>take man/woman power as well. Canada has a darn good health system,
>and if we spent less on our health care than we spend now, we could
>probably still afford the advantages we have equipment and
>specialist-wise over them. Also, since thirty percent of medical labor
>is clerical, the savings to us would be significant.

Yes, administrative costs here are horrible.  However, regarding the Canadian
health care system, talk to a Canadian travelling to Buffalo, Detroit or
Seattle for surgery which takes months (or even years in some cases!) to get
in Canada.  Canada has *far* higher taxes than the U.S.A., and has a higher
national debt per capita.

>Conservatives (The word means "No, I want your money, don't give it to
>the government!) always try this crap to try to suck up the money
>themselves with shoddy over-priced goods. But can they run an
>inexpensive and effective health care system for everyone? No.

Real intelligent.  I'm glad you can describe all conservatives so easily with
one blanket statement.  There must be an "-ist" word to describe that!  I mean,
if conservatives make a blanket statement about *anything*, they are racist,
sexist, ageist, or bigoted in some manner which can be described with an "-ist"
word.  And no socialist medical system has ever been "inexpensive and effect-
ive" either.Oh, and we can't forget thecatch-all term--"fascist"...

To me, the word "conservative" means someone who believes in "conserving" the
principles in the Constitution, none of which you seem to be interested in.

>Can they even start a business that can send one ounce as cheaply as the
>post office? No. Check with UPS FEDX and the other parcel deliverers.

As I said before, if the USPS were out of the way, and UPS and FedEx were now
competing for market share where the USPS used to dominate, you would see the
competition keep prices down.  What incentives are there to hold the line on
costs when you are a monopoly which can raise prices at will?  Why does our
great government (which people like you want more of) pass the Sherman Anti-
Trust Act of 1890 while giving us monopolies like the USPS? Again, though,
I'm not complaining about sending something 3000 miles for 29 cents.  But I
*would* prefer to pay only 20 cents!  :-)

>It can't be done. That's why no one even wants to compete with the
>feds on that stuff. They only want they quick money, high paying end
>of the shipping business.

It can't be done *in the current socialist environment*.  Do yourself a favor.
Read the Constitution.  If you don't like it, you can always push for amend-
ments matching your agenda.  That's how we got the income tax.

Tim Irvin j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
***************************************************************************
The Federalist Papers:  Cliffs Notes for Constitutional Study.  Use it.

Marrou/Lord '92