From: Carole Allen on
On 1 Aug 2006 02:15:21 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)> wrote:
>Giving people something that they haven't earned does *not* increase
>productivity. And if you, like The Reid, allow your requirements for
>"quality of life" to include getting something you haven't earned and
>making someone else pay for it then it says a whole lot about your
>personal values. Myself I find that something I earned is an order of
>magnitude more important to me than something I didn't earn.

Wow, there's an argument for the estate tax. Because for every dime
that isn't paid in estate taxes (for every dollar that goes to someone
who didn't EARN it, like say the Hilton sisters), other poor sap
taxpayers have to take up the slack.

From: Tchiowa on

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Tchiowa writes:
> > No it's not. A monopoly is when you can only have one
> > provider PERIOD. You have no choice who to provide your service.
> So the USPS does not have a monopoly on first-class mail because such
> mail has been delivered by different entities in the past?

Not any more. They used to. But now mail can be handled by several
private entities (like DHL) and service has improved dramatically. For
some mail that the law restricts to the USPS the service is pretty bad.

> A monopoly exists when there is no choice of provider, or when
> substantial impediments to a change of provider exist. You don't have
> much choice about telephone providers if you have to pay money and
> have wiring changed just to change from one to another.

You don't have to do that. You just change. New laws in the past
decade. The original phone company that put in the land lines is
required by law to share them with other providers. All I have to do is
ask and my service is changed.

> > I can
> > buy groceries from any of dozens of stores. But as I don't have a split
> > personality I can only buy from one at a time. Does that make them a
> > monopoly?
> It costs you nothing to choose a different store for each trip. The
> same is not true for public utilities and other monopolies.

It costs me nothing to change phone companies. It costs me nothing to
change electrical providers. And it costs me nothing to change health
care insurers.

From: Tchiowa on

Carole Allen wrote:
> On 31 Jul 2006 20:31:37 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)> wrote:
> >I would guess just from personal experience that by the time people are
> >25-30 years old, the vast majority are in the job that they are going
> >to be doing for a very long time. And then they are getting plenty of
> >vacation. Vacation that they have "earned".
> That's in the past. Outsourcing has changed all that. Welcome to the
> new world economy.

That's a line that the Luddites like to use. In fact only a tiny
portion of jobs have been outsourced. And the stats I posted showed
that the majority of people over 30 stay in their jobs for long periods
of time and have plenty of vacation available to them.

From: Carole Allen on

>Carole Allen writes:
>> You ask for donations for your personal use. They ask for donations
>> to relieve suffering of others. They are not using donations to
>> purchase items for themselves, but to use for the organizaiton's core
>> purpose of aid to others.
>On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 07:50:48 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)> wrote:
How do they purchase items for themselves, if not by using money from
Can't you read? They are NOT purchasing items for their personal use.
They are funding transport of people and material to places where drs
and medical support staff are needed. They are purchasing medicine
and medical equipment for these purposes. They are not buying rolexes
and land rovers and symphony tickets, nor are they buying air
conditioners for their homes, or feeding themselves a constant string
of sugary drinks and McD burgers.

They are putting themselves in great danger to serve humanitarian
ends, in such places as Rwanda, and other sites of disease and
genocide. Oh, and I would bet those places are HOT, and people are
living in tents in camps and do NOT have AC.
From: Tchiowa on

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Tchiowa writes:
> > Funny, but I have several options for local phones in California.
> How many local loops lead into your house? And what about other
> telephone services?

Many phone companies have access to the same wires.

> > Steel, Oil, Railroads.
> Passenger rail service is a monopoly in the United States, mainly
> because private companies refused to provide passenger service.

And the government service is lousy and losing money.

> They refused to provide it because they couldn't make a large-enough profit
> on it.
> > But you can have different electrical providers using the
> > infrastructure. Which is exactly what we have in California now.
> That doesn't help if you have no choice at your incoming electrical
> service.

But I do.

> > Maybe. But to go back to the original topic, health care certainly
> > doesn't qualify.
> Why not? Illness is a constant in society; the percentage of people
> who require medical care is relatively fixed. They have no choice
> over their need for care; when they need it, they need it.

But they have a choice over who provides it and under what
circumstances. As an example when my kids were in high school I used an
HMO that happened to have a hospital almost across the street from
their school. They had their cards and if they needed medical care they
walked across the street. Now my circumstance has changed and that HMO
is no longer convenient for me so I changed providers.

> It's well suited to government oversight.

We're talking about "control" not "oversight".

> One must avoid abuse and waste, as
> always, but in countries where anonymous ownership of private
> corporations makes profit the primary and often the only goal,
> government ownership is the lesser of two evils.

So when you think of avoiding waste and abuse you think of the

Which section? The Pentagon? DMV? Post Office? VA? DHS? Which
government entity is your paragon of avoiding waste and abuse?

The word government comes from the Swahili word meaning "waste and
abuse". And "corruption, inefficiency"