They're really going to try to starve the post office and then scrap it for parts so private companies can swoop in. classic capitalism -- fucking up a public resource so that market can be...
They're really going to try to starve the post office and then scrap it for parts so private companies can swoop in. classic capitalism -- fucking up a public resource so that market can be introduced where there was none before
Meanwhile the post office is still the cheapest and fastest way to send stuff across the country (at least in my experience). Even if it was 2x slower it would still be better than FedEx and...
Meanwhile the post office is still the cheapest and fastest way to send stuff across the country (at least in my experience). Even if it was 2x slower it would still be better than FedEx and cheaper than UPS.
Yeah shipping with FedEx is seemingly a complete crapshoot on your package: a) getting there b) being undamaged c) being on time Seemingly they have gotten worse in the last few years. I wonder...
Yeah shipping with FedEx is seemingly a complete crapshoot on your package:
a) getting there
b) being undamaged
c) being on time
Seemingly they have gotten worse in the last few years. I wonder who's even shipping w/ them at this point. Maybe the process is better for corporate customers?
How exactly is this not an example of capitalists privatizing what was once public in order to create a new market and extract more profit? Capitalism has done this with land and natural resources...
How exactly is this not an example of capitalists privatizing what was once public in order to create a new market and extract more profit? Capitalism has done this with land and natural resources the world over. It's a hallmark of the system.
I used to be one of those people who would use a term like "classic capitalism"...but then learned how other countries employ "capitalism", as well as a little more general info for myself about...
I used to be one of those people who would use a term like "classic capitalism"...but then learned how other countries employ "capitalism", as well as a little more general info for myself about capitalism...and arrived at a similar conclusion, and have also started using "American capitalism" to differentiate it from general capitalism. Similarly, when i started travelling to other countries for work (e.g. Netherlands, etc.), i have seen a similar thing for democracy (not just capitalism): there's the American way; and then there is the general way.
The primary places I have seen terms like "American Capitalism" or "Crony Capitalism" used is by capitalists who would like to deny the natural conclusions & contradictions inherent to capitalism....
The primary places I have seen terms like "American Capitalism" or "Crony Capitalism" used is by capitalists who would like to deny the natural conclusions & contradictions inherent to capitalism. In your view, what is the difference between American Capitalism and "general" capitalism?
Tl;dr The government engages in favoritism towards big corporations, thus making the 'free' in 'free market' a lie. If you want a more detailed explanation, see regulatory capture.
Tl;dr The government engages in favoritism towards big corporations, thus making the 'free' in 'free market' a lie.
My point is that things like regulatory capture and corporate favoritism are a natural conclusion to capitalism, and in no way are unique to the United States.
My point is that things like regulatory capture and corporate favoritism are a natural conclusion to capitalism, and in no way are unique to the United States.
Yeah, i should clarify that of course no other nation that i've experienced is perfect either...and logical next steps for capitalism can/would occur in other nations too...but it is merely that...
Yeah, i should clarify that of course no other nation that i've experienced is perfect either...and logical next steps for capitalism can/would occur in other nations too...but it is merely that aspects of capitalism seem to have been so exaggerated and/or abused within U.S. that it manifests as a great detriment to the greater population blocking/dampening opportunities for even mediocre prosperity, even though "on paper" it seems like America is this great bastion of opportunity. In my view it is as if adopting capitalism is like raising a shark from its youth...at some point, some other (successful?) nations saw how crazy this growing shark is/can be, so they reined the shark in a tad, and only released it very minimally...whereas, the U.S - to continue my cheesy analogy - has left the shark grow rampant, and only intervened in less-than-ideal scenarios...leaving too many people in the swimming tank to get eaten by this growing shark.
The only reason i can think of is that the founding fathers of the U.S, might have thought that incentivising the population - via capitalistic approaches (through legislation or laissez faire) -...
The only reason i can think of is that the founding fathers of the U.S, might have thought that incentivising the population - via capitalistic approaches (through legislation or laissez faire) - could help develop a new (at the time struggling) nation?? And, maybe they thought that capitalism might be the ticket out of their lack of economy (after the American Revolution)?? I'm sure there is some connection to the Scottish writers of the time too. (I truly lack enough background such that i have to resort to cheesy shark analogies). That being said, i wonder if there is any literature from the founding fathers (or whomever helped push capitalism within U.S.) as to whether they actually expected capitalism to a long-term force in their future...or did they think, "this can not possibly be the thing to employ in the future, but it will do in the short-term..."? Which is all to state, i don't know why we/nations raise sharks in these "tanks"...maybe it is something as crass as that line, "Greed is good...", from that wall street movie? (Which i very much disagree with that premise.)
By the way, this has been really a great convo! Thanks!
I don't think the founding fathers really thought much about capitalism at all, at least not in the way we think of it today. At the time of the American revolution, capitalism was a relatively...
I don't think the founding fathers really thought much about capitalism at all, at least not in the way we think of it today. At the time of the American revolution, capitalism was a relatively new phenomenon that hadn't really been fully ideologically articulated yet, at best it was probably seen in a vaguely progressive anti-aristocratic light. They certainly weren't thinking about it in terms of the modem socialist-capitalist spectrum, even if there is a reading of Jefferson's ideal of the yeoman farmers' republic as agrarian socialism.
I would like to thank Flashynuff and you (mxuribe for other readers) for your short but understandable and (for me) personal conversation about classic capitalism or American capitalism vs general...
I would like to thank Flashynuff and you (mxuribe for other readers) for your short but understandable and (for me) personal conversation about classic capitalism or American capitalism vs general capitalism. Kudos!
As i was beginning to draft a response...i would state that the term "regulatory capture" that @Kuromantis referenced best captures what i was going to respond with.
As i was beginning to draft a response...i would state that the term "regulatory capture" that @Kuromantis referenced best captures what i was going to respond with.
It's weirder than that because the federal government's accounting is somewhat unreal. Whether the Post Office is profitable or not depends on your perspective when it comes to future government...
It's weirder than that because the federal government's accounting is somewhat unreal. Whether the Post Office is profitable or not depends on your perspective when it comes to future government benefits for retired post office workers. Cash flow is real, how to account for future government obligations is debatable.
But it's true that there is no problem here that wasn't created by Congress. They could change their minds and the Post Office would be okay again.
Postmaster General Louis DeJoy told employees to leave mail behind at distribution centers if it delayed letter carriers from their routes, according to internal USPS documents obtained by The Washington Post and verified by the American Postal Workers Union and three people with knowledge of their contents, but who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid retribution.
“If the plants run late, they will keep the mail for the next day,” according to a document titled, “New PMG’s [Postmaster General’s] expectations and plan.” Traditionally, postal workers are trained not to leave letters behind and to make multiple delivery trips to ensure timely distribution of letters and parcels.
An acquaintance once remarked to me, "why doesn't the USPS compete with AWS to create their own verson?"...And while this could be debated, that would be a tough fight to go against Amazon in this...
An acquaintance once remarked to me, "why doesn't the USPS compete with AWS to create their own verson?"...And while this could be debated, that would be a tough fight to go against Amazon in this space. But this got me thinking, why doesn't the USPS get into the internet service provider (ISP) market; perhaps like a municipal/local ISP? As i recall other nations have their telco and postal services under the same umbrella...couldn't we try that here in the U.S.? This could be one approach to expand internet access for many rural regions too. And/Or, even for regions (maybe urban ones?) that have access to 1 or a few providers, the USPS could be an additional option; driving competition among the for-profit ISPs. I know this foray would not be cheap nor fast nor easy to do...but it feels right to me in several ways. At the very least, there should be some prototype attempted in a limited fashion or region.
I suppose the largest issue with that is that existing telcos would attempt to strongarm the USPS out of the market. There would need to be significant legislation to ensure fair competition.. at...
I suppose the largest issue with that is that existing telcos would attempt to strongarm the USPS out of the market. There would need to be significant legislation to ensure fair competition.. at which point, why not just nationalize/municipalize Amazon and the telcos?
...would need to be significant legislation to ensure fair competition...
Agreed! Though i hadn't thought about nationalizing/municipalizing the telcos...i honestly don't know if that would be a good or bad thing. I sort of assumed USPS would be the "municipal" option with still room for competition from private telcos...but certainly a dicey area. One thing i know, the current state of affairs does not nearly work for enough people around the country...as opposed to other nations who at least have far more access to high speed internet (often at lower prices). I felt like USPS could be something that could help...but definitely plenty of sticky wicket issues would need to be addressed first.
I assume this is related to mail-in ballots being a threat to the GOP, right? I'm surprised I'm the first person to mention this. But then again, even Trump has said what we're saying so at this...
I assume this is related to mail-in ballots being a threat to the GOP, right? I'm surprised I'm the first person to mention this.
But then again, even Trump has said what we're saying so at this point it might not even be worth discussing...
Maybe it does now, but this fight started long before the pandemic and has more to do with political philosophy about economics. Republicans have been trying to privatize things since the 80's.
Maybe it does now, but this fight started long before the pandemic and has more to do with political philosophy about economics. Republicans have been trying to privatize things since the 80's.
You might not have anyone sending you mail! Do you need something sent to you, to be sure? Pm me if so, I got an unused deck of postcards around here somewhere..
You might not have anyone sending you mail! Do you need something sent to you, to be sure? Pm me if so, I got an unused deck of postcards around here somewhere..
Why on earth did the Democrats not repeal that in 2009 when they had control of the House, Senate, and presidency?? There's so much shit like this that they could have done something about but...
Why on earth did the Democrats not repeal that in 2009 when they had control of the House, Senate, and presidency?? There's so much shit like this that they could have done something about but just didn't
I think the problem is people like Joe Manchin, Lieberman and Doug Jones were (still are? Manchin and Jones are still in the Senate right now) too prominent in the party and don't belong in the...
Why on earth did the Democrats not repeal that in 2009 when they had control of the House, Senate, and presidency?? There's so much shit like this that they could have done something about but just didn't
I think the problem is people like Joe Manchin, Lieberman and Doug Jones were (still are? Manchin and Jones are still in the Senate right now) too prominent in the party and don't belong in the moderate/progressive Democratic coalition since these people are either blue-dogs or neoliberals, and they don't really belong in the GOP since the Reps have been too religious since at least Reagan. This is one of my worries if we get a 50-seat VP tie or a 51 seat bare majority, because a lot of what we (even Biden supporting moderates) want to do will be neutered by these people.
Doug Jones was elected in Alabama in 2017. Alabama hadn't elected a Democrat to any statewide office since 2008, and even that was a Public Service Commision seat (PSC regulates state utilities...
Doug Jones was elected in Alabama in 2017. Alabama hadn't elected a Democrat to any statewide office since 2008, and even that was a Public Service Commision seat (PSC regulates state utilities such as Alabama Power). A Democrat hadn't represented Alabama in the Senate since 1997, and Alabama has only gotten redder since (AL went to Trump by +27.7 points in 2016). Expecting an Alabama elected Democrat to be as progressive as one elected in NY or CA is pretty ridiculous, and even considering that, 538 has Jones' Trump Score (how often a congressperson votes in line with Trump) at lower than eight other Senate Democrats, including Senators from Maine and Virginia, both of which went to Clinton in 2016.
Additionally, no Senate Democrat has a "Trump Score" higher than even the most "moderate" Senate Republican (Susan Collins - 67.2% Trump Score), and without those Senators in states that lean Republican, the Democratic minority would be even smaller. It isn't really useful to beat up on these guys, and Manchin and Jones have both voted with the Democratic Caucus when it mattered most, such as the impeachment trial.
I agree, which is why I ultimately don't really blame them for being 'moderates' but ultimately that's not what the rest of the Democratic party is about and with the Senate being a federal...
I agree, which is why I ultimately don't really blame them for being 'moderates' but ultimately that's not what the rest of the Democratic party is about and with the Senate being a federal office, they can't really remove themselves from the rest of the party. They can pass pro-voting bills and DC statehood, but that's about it and then they need to be booted off.
Also this is one of the more glaring flaws in the 2-party system, where moderates compete in all the important swing districts while the progressives can only compete in very safe districts.
Lol, wut? The GOP's entire platform for the last 40 years has been, "You have to vote for us because Democrats are baby-killing, God-hating, bleeding-heart criminal lovers." (I'm paraphrasing of...
they don't really belong in the GOP since they're too religious.
Lol, wut? The GOP's entire platform for the last 40 years has been, "You have to vote for us because Democrats are baby-killing, God-hating, bleeding-heart criminal lovers." (I'm paraphrasing of course.) We're talking about people like Michele Bachman who, although she worked on Jimmy Carter's presidential campaign in the 70s, became a Republican and won seats running on various Christian moral stances. The GOP are known as the religious party in a lot of ways here in the US. They won votes for years by promising to repeal abortion laws on religious grounds and have pushed for laws allowing or requiring prayer in schools in various states for years.
It certainly wasn't clear to me considering I was in middle school, but these people are career politicians! The only way they miss this is if they are incompetent or if they don't actually want...
As far as I can tell, I think in 2009/2010 it was not clear exactly how bad the legislation was and how disastrous it would be on the USPS
It certainly wasn't clear to me considering I was in middle school, but these people are career politicians! The only way they miss this is if they are incompetent or if they don't actually want to do anything about it...
They're really going to try to starve the post office and then scrap it for parts so private companies can swoop in. classic capitalism -- fucking up a public resource so that market can be introduced where there was none before
Meanwhile the post office is still the cheapest and fastest way to send stuff across the country (at least in my experience). Even if it was 2x slower it would still be better than FedEx and cheaper than UPS.
almost like things are cheaper for the end user when there's not a CEO trying make a profit out of every single transaction
Yeah shipping with FedEx is seemingly a complete crapshoot on your package:
a) getting there
b) being undamaged
c) being on time
Seemingly they have gotten worse in the last few years. I wonder who's even shipping w/ them at this point. Maybe the process is better for corporate customers?
How exactly is this not an example of capitalists privatizing what was once public in order to create a new market and extract more profit? Capitalism has done this with land and natural resources the world over. It's a hallmark of the system.
I used to be one of those people who would use a term like "classic capitalism"...but then learned how other countries employ "capitalism", as well as a little more general info for myself about capitalism...and arrived at a similar conclusion, and have also started using "American capitalism" to differentiate it from general capitalism. Similarly, when i started travelling to other countries for work (e.g. Netherlands, etc.), i have seen a similar thing for democracy (not just capitalism): there's the American way; and then there is the general way.
The primary places I have seen terms like "American Capitalism" or "Crony Capitalism" used is by capitalists who would like to deny the natural conclusions & contradictions inherent to capitalism. In your view, what is the difference between American Capitalism and "general" capitalism?
Tl;dr The government engages in favoritism towards big corporations, thus making the 'free' in 'free market' a lie.
If you want a more detailed explanation, see regulatory capture.
My point is that things like regulatory capture and corporate favoritism are a natural conclusion to capitalism, and in no way are unique to the United States.
Yeah, i should clarify that of course no other nation that i've experienced is perfect either...and logical next steps for capitalism can/would occur in other nations too...but it is merely that aspects of capitalism seem to have been so exaggerated and/or abused within U.S. that it manifests as a great detriment to the greater population blocking/dampening opportunities for even mediocre prosperity, even though "on paper" it seems like America is this great bastion of opportunity. In my view it is as if adopting capitalism is like raising a shark from its youth...at some point, some other (successful?) nations saw how crazy this growing shark is/can be, so they reined the shark in a tad, and only released it very minimally...whereas, the U.S - to continue my cheesy analogy - has left the shark grow rampant, and only intervened in less-than-ideal scenarios...leaving too many people in the swimming tank to get eaten by this growing shark.
This analogy is great. Why are we raising sharks (capitalism) in swimming tanks (nations) in the first place?
The only reason i can think of is that the founding fathers of the U.S, might have thought that incentivising the population - via capitalistic approaches (through legislation or laissez faire) - could help develop a new (at the time struggling) nation?? And, maybe they thought that capitalism might be the ticket out of their lack of economy (after the American Revolution)?? I'm sure there is some connection to the Scottish writers of the time too. (I truly lack enough background such that i have to resort to cheesy shark analogies). That being said, i wonder if there is any literature from the founding fathers (or whomever helped push capitalism within U.S.) as to whether they actually expected capitalism to a long-term force in their future...or did they think, "this can not possibly be the thing to employ in the future, but it will do in the short-term..."? Which is all to state, i don't know why we/nations raise sharks in these "tanks"...maybe it is something as crass as that line, "Greed is good...", from that wall street movie? (Which i very much disagree with that premise.)
By the way, this has been really a great convo! Thanks!
I don't think the founding fathers really thought much about capitalism at all, at least not in the way we think of it today. At the time of the American revolution, capitalism was a relatively new phenomenon that hadn't really been fully ideologically articulated yet, at best it was probably seen in a vaguely progressive anti-aristocratic light. They certainly weren't thinking about it in terms of the modem socialist-capitalist spectrum, even if there is a reading of Jefferson's ideal of the yeoman farmers' republic as agrarian socialism.
I would like to thank Flashynuff and you (mxuribe for other readers) for your short but understandable and (for me) personal conversation about classic capitalism or American capitalism vs general capitalism. Kudos!
Likewise really good discussion; I know i learned some stuff!!
As i was beginning to draft a response...i would state that the term "regulatory capture" that @Kuromantis referenced best captures what i was going to respond with.
It's weirder than that because the federal government's accounting is somewhat unreal. Whether the Post Office is profitable or not depends on your perspective when it comes to future government benefits for retired post office workers. Cash flow is real, how to account for future government obligations is debatable.
But it's true that there is no problem here that wasn't created by Congress. They could change their minds and the Post Office would be okay again.
From the article:
An acquaintance once remarked to me, "why doesn't the USPS compete with AWS to create their own verson?"...And while this could be debated, that would be a tough fight to go against Amazon in this space. But this got me thinking, why doesn't the USPS get into the internet service provider (ISP) market; perhaps like a municipal/local ISP? As i recall other nations have their telco and postal services under the same umbrella...couldn't we try that here in the U.S.? This could be one approach to expand internet access for many rural regions too. And/Or, even for regions (maybe urban ones?) that have access to 1 or a few providers, the USPS could be an additional option; driving competition among the for-profit ISPs. I know this foray would not be cheap nor fast nor easy to do...but it feels right to me in several ways. At the very least, there should be some prototype attempted in a limited fashion or region.
I suppose the largest issue with that is that existing telcos would attempt to strongarm the USPS out of the market. There would need to be significant legislation to ensure fair competition.. at which point, why not just nationalize/municipalize Amazon and the telcos?
I assume this is related to mail-in ballots being a threat to the GOP, right? I'm surprised I'm the first person to mention this.
But then again, even Trump has said what we're saying so at this point it might not even be worth discussing...
Maybe it does now, but this fight started long before the pandemic and has more to do with political philosophy about economics. Republicans have been trying to privatize things since the 80's.
Well that explains why I feel like I haven't been getting any mail recently.
You might not have anyone sending you mail! Do you need something sent to you, to be sure? Pm me if so, I got an unused deck of postcards around here somewhere..
Why on earth did the Democrats not repeal that in 2009 when they had control of the House, Senate, and presidency?? There's so much shit like this that they could have done something about but just didn't
Because despite the narrative, Democrats largely voted for this as well as Republicans.
I think the problem is people like Joe Manchin, Lieberman and Doug Jones were (still are? Manchin and Jones are still in the Senate right now) too prominent in the party and don't belong in the moderate/progressive Democratic coalition since these people are either blue-dogs or neoliberals, and they don't really belong in the GOP since the Reps have been too religious since at least Reagan. This is one of my worries if we get a 50-seat VP tie or a 51 seat bare majority, because a lot of what we (even Biden supporting moderates) want to do will be neutered by these people.
Doug Jones was elected in Alabama in 2017. Alabama hadn't elected a Democrat to any statewide office since 2008, and even that was a Public Service Commision seat (PSC regulates state utilities such as Alabama Power). A Democrat hadn't represented Alabama in the Senate since 1997, and Alabama has only gotten redder since (AL went to Trump by +27.7 points in 2016). Expecting an Alabama elected Democrat to be as progressive as one elected in NY or CA is pretty ridiculous, and even considering that, 538 has Jones' Trump Score (how often a congressperson votes in line with Trump) at lower than eight other Senate Democrats, including Senators from Maine and Virginia, both of which went to Clinton in 2016.
Additionally, no Senate Democrat has a "Trump Score" higher than even the most "moderate" Senate Republican (Susan Collins - 67.2% Trump Score), and without those Senators in states that lean Republican, the Democratic minority would be even smaller. It isn't really useful to beat up on these guys, and Manchin and Jones have both voted with the Democratic Caucus when it mattered most, such as the impeachment trial.
I agree, which is why I ultimately don't really blame them for being 'moderates' but ultimately that's not what the rest of the Democratic party is about and with the Senate being a federal office, they can't really remove themselves from the rest of the party. They can pass pro-voting bills and DC statehood, but that's about it and then they need to be booted off.
Also this is one of the more glaring flaws in the 2-party system, where moderates compete in all the important swing districts while the progressives can only compete in very safe districts.
Lol, wut? The GOP's entire platform for the last 40 years has been, "You have to vote for us because Democrats are baby-killing, God-hating, bleeding-heart criminal lovers." (I'm paraphrasing of course.) We're talking about people like Michele Bachman who, although she worked on Jimmy Carter's presidential campaign in the 70s, became a Republican and won seats running on various Christian moral stances. The GOP are known as the religious party in a lot of ways here in the US. They won votes for years by promising to repeal abortion laws on religious grounds and have pushed for laws allowing or requiring prayer in schools in various states for years.
Oh wait, 'They' was the GOP, fixed the comment.
Ah, OK, that makes much more sense! Thanks!
It certainly wasn't clear to me considering I was in middle school, but these people are career politicians! The only way they miss this is if they are incompetent or if they don't actually want to do anything about it...
Thanks for digging all that up. It seems to me like they tried once and when that failed they didn't try again?