Political News and Commentary with the Right Perspective. NAVIGATION
  • Front Page
  • News
  • Multimedia
  • Tags
  • RSS Feed

  • Advertise on RightMichigan.com


    Get the RightMighigan.com toolbar!



    Who are the NERD fund donors Mr Snyder?

    Raise the curtain.

    Display: Sort:
    Re analyze (none / 0) (#31)
    by jgillmanjr on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 04:33:12 PM EST
    I have no issue with the government having a postal service or public transportation service

    I do, and one simple reason is that what will happen when the government starts losing out to the competition? Either they will just subsidize their operation with tax money, or regulate the other industries to a disadvantage (both points I maid in my last post).

    although obviously launching rockets should be extensively regulated for safety concerns

    Why can't the market guarantee safety of rocket launches? If a company has a bad record, they're going to be forced out of business by the market. It's simple.

    In addition, that statement brings out unstated premises which you clearly hold to be true:

    1. Some government bureaucrat with P.E. after his name has some omniscient ability to know what is required to make a launch absolutely safe.

    2. Anything operating outside of the regulatory framework is unsafe

    These are both WRONG. 120% wrong. First premise? Let's see what comes to mind... OH! I know! Challenger.

    By the way, it's impossible to make the statement that I quoted without holding those premises to be true. If you didn't, then you wouldn't need regulation to "make things safe", now would you?

    With the mail industry, there are numerous complications when it comes to mailing overseas, where something would have to be worked out with the Universal Postal Union (which isn't going away)

    Why? Tell them to feck off. Other countries will follow suit because they certainly don't want to cut postal ties with the United States. I'm assuming that your stating that other countries won't deal with the US because we aren't dealing with the UPU if we had a private system. Is this correct?

    And with the railway industry, there is the massive issue of either coordinating private train companies using public tracks (and public stations) or creating an entirely new set of rails for private use, which is a huge can of worms because finding land to build these tracks on is very difficult. So with railways, at least, there are enormous practical barriers to creating a private rail industry today.

    Or you could privatize the existing rails and the companies could work out their own agreements.

    Oh, and a quick note related to trains and the stimulus because it is a monumental example of doing things the wrong way. Obama set aside a large part of the remainder of the stimulus aside for a high speed rail system. Upgrading our railways to a high speed system is a great idea in theory, because high speed railways are more convenient for the public and are more efficient. This typically leads to higher rates of train use, which allows for cheaper intercity transportation and has the happy effect of reducing gasoline consumption nationwide. However, implementing such a system will require a lot of capital and is thus best-suited for private investment in a system in which the government runs the rails and private companies run the actual trains (basically the same setup that exists with airlines). Instead, Obama allotted some eight billion of dollars to be distributed among proposed individual high-speed rail corridors that do not have the necessary funding to actually be built, thus wasting the money when we could have applied it to something like the more recent small business aid package.

    You mean the government isn't omniscient?!?!?!

    And what do you mean "basically the same setup that exists with airlines"?

    The problem with Democratic initiatives this cycle is that after finally getting control of the legislature and presidency for the first time since the 103rd Congress, they're trying to implement everything that's been on their agenda for the past decade. The problem is that they also came to power with a big deficit and terrible economy, so these programs take a big problem and make it even worse. I mean, if the government decided to invest in high speed rails when we had a surplus, it would be one thing (not necessarily a good thing, but not the end of the world), but by throwing $8 billion at high speed rails when we already have a huge deficit is just nuts. If we're going to invest money in all of this stuff, can we at least get something out of it?!

    Further supporting the point that the government needs to stick to only it's core functions.


    Okay, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (none / 0) (#32)
    by Corinthian Scales on Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 10:55:56 AM EST
    I have no issue with the government having a postal service or public transportation service, but they should allow other entities to compete with them. The same goes for other industries, like the space industry (NASA has a virtual monopoly on launching satellites, although obviously launching rockets should be extensively regulated for safety concerns).

    Two words.  Asian Carp.  There's another example of the Obumf#@% administration, his political machines hometown and the federal gummint in action.

    Kid, like I said before, once you get off that LibTard college campus and start living Life 101, there may be hope for you.  Until then, yah may want to get a glass bellybutton to see how the world really works.


    Display: Sort:


    Make a new account

    Tweet along with RightMichigan by
    following us on Twitter HERE!
    create account | faq | search