Electric cars take off in Norway

May 10, 2011 by Pierre-Henry Deshayes
Norway may well be a major oil exporter, but it's fast becoming a paragon of clean energy as Norwegians go crazy for electric cars.

They speed past gas guzzlers in traffic, ignore congestion charges and get city centre parking for free. In a country whose wealth is fuelled by oil, Oslo has become the world capital of the electric car.

"There are more per capita here than in any other capital of the world," said Rune Haaland, the head of the electric car users association Norstart, standing in a city centre car park forbidden to other car users.

Almost 4,000 of the small, clean and silent vehicles are on the roads of Norway, although they are found mainly in the cities, and the number is climbing as new models come onto the market.

From the tiny, locally-made Buddy, to the sporty Tesla, which can accelerate from zero to 100 kilometres (62 miles) in less than four seconds, all sorts of electric cars have taken to the roads of the Norwegian capital.

Norway may be one of the world's top fossil fuel exporters, but it has set ambitious objectives, aiming to reduce its by 30 percent by 2020.

"The electric car is a very important tool for that, knowing that 40 percent of our emissions come from the transport sector and 60 percent of those come from road transport," Transport Minister Magnhild Meltveit Kleppa told AFP.

According to some estimates, the country's 3,891 electric cars allow it to save over 6,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.

To persuade drivers to switch to electric cars, Norway has introduced a string of incentive measures.

Electric cars can use bus lanes and thus bypass traffic jams, they don't have to shell out congestion charges and can park for free on municipal car parks.

New father Christian Blakseth traded his bicycle for an electric car.

"It's very advantageous to be able to park for free downtown and to escape ," the young train conductor said.

"And you don't get drowned in day-to-day spending: it's a car that is expensive to buy but cheap to use," he said.

To persuade drivers to switch to electric cars, Norway has introduced a string of incentive measures. Electric cars can use bus lanes and thus bypass traffic jams, they don't have to shell out congestion charges and can park for free on municipal car parks.

Charging an electric car's batteries at home costs about two euros ($2.90). Norwegian petrol prices are among the highest in Europe.

With growing demand, carmakers are rushing to put out new models.

And consumers are responding with just as much enthusiasm: in the first quarter this year, an electric car, Mitsubishi's i-MiEV, topped small model car sales in Norway, ahead of all time favorites.

"We were planning to sell 400 units (cars) in Norway this year, and we are already at 700. We think we will ultimately reach 1,000," the head of Mitsubishi Norway Bernt Jessen said.

Despite technological advances, distance remains a problem for electric vehicles, however, with cars only able to go for around 150 kilometres before needing to be recharged.

And with Norway's cold winters slashing battery efficiency, optimal performance is hard to achieve.

To get around this obstacle, Norway has decided to put in place a national network of charging stands across the country allowing drivers to "fill up" their cars in about 20 minutes, just long enough to enjoy a roadside cup of coffee, compared to the seven or eight hours normally needed.

The mountain cottage, sacrosanct for Norwegians, could soon be only a few kilowatts away.

Explore further: Material generates steam under solar illumination

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Electric vehicles given thumbs up

May 19, 2010

The first trial of electric vehicles in North East England has been a major success, leaving hundreds of drivers ready to make the switch to low carbon transport. Newcastle University in conjunction with Cenex, the UK's ...

Finnish firms announce electric car plans

Aug 06, 2009

Finnish engineering company Metso's unit Valmet Automotive and utility Fortum said Thursday they will jointly develop an electric concept car to be shown at the Geneva Motor Show in March 2010.

Electric cars can succeed in oil-rich states: Ghosn

Aug 30, 2010

Electric cars can be successful in Gulf countries and other oil-rich states, but only with initial government help, the president and CEO of Nissan and Renault said on Monday in Abu Dhabi.

Britain offers state grants for electric cars

Dec 14, 2010

The British government on Tuesday launched state grants aimed at encouraging motorists to buy environmentally-friendly electric cars made by leading manufacturers including Mercedes-Benz and Toyota.

Recommended for you

User comments : 120

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Doug_Huffman
1.5 / 5 (22) May 10, 2011
If a socialist electric car is so attractive and inexpensive as to be traded for a bicycle, then why the perquisites of designated lanes and unequal legal protection? What is being hidden? Raw economic tyranny in a socialist state central planning.
nsugavanam
not rated yet May 10, 2011
Please make dual charging system. I should be able to charge the vehicle in my home through electric plus point. When I drive the car, I should be able to charge through solar energy. Make PV cells in the top of the car...
lurch
5 / 5 (7) May 10, 2011
Doug_Huffman, sorry to say but you have it wrong, the socialist state does not like electric cars because they can be charged without paying fuel tax and without the state having the power to cut you off (if you have solar panels on your (house) roof). Not to mention the huge amounts of money we pay in tax to fight wars to maintain the supply of oil.
epsi00
5 / 5 (11) May 10, 2011
Doug is against socialism for the masses. Socialism for corporations has been around for as long as we can remember. Just remember how much money the GM's, the Chrysler's, the AIG's of this world, the Wall Street banks and bankers milked from the taxpayers just recently. Except they do not call it socialism. They call it bailout.
bewertow
not rated yet May 10, 2011
Good to see that electric cars are finally becoming popular! Now we just need to work on generating the electricity in a clean way. Solar cells need to become more efficient, and we can use wind turbines as well. Maybe one day fusion as well...
epsi00
2 / 5 (1) May 10, 2011
The problem with electric cars, CFL bulbs and many other more efficient or less polluting products is that the savings are pocketed by the manufacturers ( or sellers ) while the customers get only the satisfaction of doing something good for the environment. Just imagine if some of those savings percolated all the way to the customers. I will not buy an electric car to save money on gas, it's truly a stupid idea since you have to fork a lot more money when you buy the car, in fact way more than what it would cost to buy AND run a gasoline engine car.
But if manufacturers decide to pass on part of the savings to customers, I will seriously thing about it.
jamesrm
5 / 5 (1) May 10, 2011
"Raw economic tyranny in a socialist state central planning."

Fucknuckle open mouth makes compleat fool of himself

that would be the headline but its not really news
_nigmatic10
1 / 5 (1) May 10, 2011
it's good to see norway make such a conversion, but remember the population and car per family ratio isn't nearly the level it is in say NY, or LA. The EV needs to happen, make no doubt of it, but the conversion to it or hybrid forms of it will take time and each area will need different methods/incentives.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 10, 2011
What happened to their hydrogen highway?

How do the batteries perform at -40 degrees?
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) May 10, 2011
It's a bit ironic that people in Norway can afford to drive electric because of the fossil fuels they sell for other people to burn. They're basically swimming in money because of their oil.

But unless they figure out a new line of business, what happens when the rest of the world decides to go clean? No more oil, no more money, can't play with electric toys anymore.
PPihkala
1 / 5 (1) May 10, 2011
But unless they figure out a new line of business, what happens when the rest of the world decides to go clean?

Don't forget that oil is used in plastics too as a raw material. So we should stop burning oil and use it for building things instead. And that will happen when the price gets higher. So let's replace oil in heating and transportation with Rossi's E-Cat and leave oil for plastics.

More info about E-Cat:

http://en.wikiped...atalyzer
frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) May 11, 2011
How do the batteries perform at -40 degrees?
How does gasoline perform at -45 degrees Celsius?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) May 11, 2011
How do the batteries perform at -40 degrees?
How does gasoline perform at -45 degrees Celsius?

Quite well.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) May 11, 2011
Quite well.
Ever had your diesel freeze?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) May 11, 2011
Quite well.
Ever had your diesel freeze?

Nope.
I have had batteries freeze and crack.
FrankHerbert
0.9 / 5 (51) May 11, 2011
Gas's great strength is its flashpoint. One of the lowest I'm aware of. So ryggesogn2 is right about that. I hate to admit that.

As far as the batteries cracking and freezing, I'd say that is doubtful. I wouldn't be surprised if extreme temperatures affect the life of the batteries, but I doubt such temperatures would outright destroy them.

I also have no idea what electric cars have to do with socialism. Knowing lil douggie however, I'm sure it's not something based in reality.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) May 11, 2011
"Hybridcars.com did report a Prius in Barrow, Alaska, suffered a frozen and damaged battery pack at minus-56 degrees, but it's doubtful a traditional battery would have performed much better in that temperature."
http://www.lifewh...ail.html
frajo
1 / 5 (1) May 12, 2011
How do the batteries perform at -40 degrees?
How does gasoline perform at -45 degrees Celsius?
Quite well.

From addins.wrex.com/blogs/weather/2011/01/cold-temperatures-are-hard-on-your-car-as-well :
Probably the most serious problem that can occur under these conditions is your fuel lines freezing. As we discussed above, the freezing point of pure gasoline is roughly -97 degrees Fahrenheit, but with the added water from moist air in the tank and lines, the water is going to freeze at the usual zero degrees Celsius or 32 degrees Fahrenheit. When this occurs, you will be forced to unfreeze the lines and, depending on how much water there is in the fuel, drain the remaining fuel from your tanks. In the most catastrophic of situations, the water in the fuel could make it to the engine and freeze. We all know that no good can come from that.

Justsayin
2.6 / 5 (5) May 12, 2011
I can't wait until I can custom order a 3d printable carbon composite car frame at 1/3 the regular cost and get the rest of the parts custom made to order from the highest quality makers worldwide thereby demonstrating power really does reside in the individual and not the state, oligopolies or multinationals.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (6) May 13, 2011
frajo, ever here of a product called Heet? It is methanol added to gasoline to absorb water.
It also helps to buy quality gasoline.
Now ethanol is 10% in all gasoline, maybe water is not so much of a problem.
frajo
5 / 5 (3) May 13, 2011
frajo, ever here of a product called Heet? It is methanol added to gasoline to absorb water.
It also helps to buy quality gasoline.
Now ethanol is 10% in all gasoline, maybe water is not so much of a problem.

And you think there is no way to help batteries at -40 degrees Celsius?
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet May 13, 2011
Quite well.
Ever had your diesel freeze?

Nope.
I have had batteries freeze and crack.

Right, and since both cars utilize a battery to operate, how would your gasoline vehicle fair in the same circumstance?

Ah that's right, it wouldn't. Your argument is defeated by your own lack of thought. You could have all the gas in the world, but without ignition, you're just as stuck, dummy.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) May 13, 2011
That's why when it is cold, the acid is checked for freezing point and if it gets too cold, the battery is brought into a warm area and an electric heater is used to keep the engine oil viscous.
Battery packs on electric cars are quite large. Will they need an electric heater or will the owner have to keep his garage heated?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 13, 2011
That's why when it is cold, the acid is checked for freezing point and if it gets too cold, the battery is brought into a warm area and an electric heater is used to keep the engine oil viscous.
Battery packs on electric cars are quite large. Will they need an electric heater or will the owner have to keep his garage heated?
Thermal wrap would suffice. The kinetic motion of the ions when properly insulated will keep the battery warm enough, or you could simply plug in a mat warmer, which since you're charging the car anyway, wouldn't be a problem.
that_guy
3.7 / 5 (3) May 14, 2011
i have two points to make.

1. Some of the socialism proponents and anti-socialism opponents at the beginning of the conversation...What's a nice way to them stupid? Both sides are arguing about whether this 'socialism' is worth it.

The government of Norway does not produce, ship, or sell electric cars. They offer a rebate and a few other perks/benefits. By definition a subsidy by itself is not socialist.

This is a science site. Aren't you guys ashamed of yourself that you couldn't spend 20 seconds on google to learn the first thing about what you are arguing about? To me, none of those comments about 'socialism' has any merit from either side.

2. As for the article, 400 or 1000 electric cars is just a drop in the bucket, and electric cars do have a number of drawbacks, in addition to the effect of cold on the batteries. Color me skeptical, but I think that the success of EV in Norway depends more on progress of technology than what they're doing
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (10) May 14, 2011
By definition a subsidy by itself is not socialist.

Of course it is. A govt takes tax payer's money and redistributes that money to some private business the govt favors.
A business that can't survive without govt support is a state owned/controlled business. That is socialism.
that_guy
4.3 / 5 (6) May 14, 2011
By definition a subsidy by itself is not socialist.

Of course it is. A govt takes tax payer's money and redistributes that money to some private business the govt favors.
A business that can't survive without govt support is a state owned/controlled business. That is socialism.

no, the state has to directly own and control the production and distribution or sale of a product or service for it to be socialist. Unless your name is Webster and you publish a dictionary, you have no way of changing that fact.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) May 14, 2011
the state has to directly own and control the production and distribution or sale of a product or service for it to be socialist.

No, it does not. If the govt controls your business, you do NOT really own it.
Mises explains this quite well in 'Socialism'. Its free to read on-line.
The NAZIs did not own businesses, but they controlled what they produced in Germany. They were called national socialists for a reason. They WERE socialists.
FrankHerbert
1 / 5 (51) May 14, 2011
Would the US have won WWII if the government hadn't taken over industry for the war effort? Oh, I suppose all our corporations volunteered, right?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 14, 2011
The NAZIs did not own businesses, but they controlled what they produced in Germany. They were called national socialists for a reason. They WERE socialists.
The NAZIs did control businesses, you're a fool if you think otherwise.
that_guy
4 / 5 (4) May 14, 2011
rygg, once again, norway does not own or control the production of the cars, it does not distribute the cars, it does not sell the cars.

All it does is discount the cars for people, and a few other benefits.

By your line of logic, if the american government ran an ad campaign to 'buy american', then it would socialize the tv stations because the american govt gave them money, in addition to the shows that were on when the commercials ran, in addition to the entire american economy, because you could say that some american companies might not have survived without the uptick in sales caused by the campaign.

We can't have a conversation with you because you are entirely unreasonable and are incapable of handling facts. So why don't you move to the only non-socialist country in the world - Somalia - in a way that avoids the socialist roads, airports, major port facilities, border services, and all the other govt stuff you hate so much.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) May 14, 2011
All it does is discount the cars for people, and a few other benefits.


Who pays for the discounts? TAXPAYERS!

It's not socialist to use fuel taxes, tire taxes, tolls, to pay for roads. These are user fees.

When the govt picks an industry and uses tax payer money to subsidize it does so at the expense of the competitors. The govt is then controlling the market, socialism.

TV and radio stations in the US are controlled by the US govt. Broadcast channels need a federal license and must follow their rules. Ownership of stations is controlled by the US govt. You are quite correct. The US is a socialist state and is becoming more socialist every day.
Vendicar_Decarian
2 / 5 (4) May 14, 2011
"If a socialist electric car is so attractive and inexpensive as to be traded for a bicycle" - Tard of Tards

Confused lunacy.

Lets see what follows....

"then why the perquisites of designated lanes and unequal legal protection?" - Tard of Tards

It is so easy to confuse Tards.

The unequal protection is of course to compensate for the unequal protection afforded to the carbon industry.

How much did America's war for oil in Iraq cost?

Norway is building toward a clean, environmentally sustainable future.

America is building for an imminent fiscal collapse in which the nation will no longer exist.

I think the answer lies in those last two facts.

Vendicar_Decarian
2 / 5 (4) May 14, 2011
"When the govt picks an industry and uses tax payer money to subsidize it does so at the expense of the competitors. The govt is then controlling the market, socialism." - Tard Boy

And what is invading a country for it's oil - as America did in Iraq, called?

American Style Capitalism.

We have had enough of that kind of Murderous American Economics thank you.
Vendicar_Decarian
2 / 5 (4) May 14, 2011
"The NAZIs did control businesses, you're a fool if you think otherwise." - FlatchTard

Well, no...

The NAZI's were the Conservative government power that was placed in power and supported by German industry, just as the Republicans in the U.S. are put in power and supported by American corporations.

Vendicar_Decarian
2 / 5 (4) May 14, 2011
"Mises explains" - Libertarian Tard

Mises is a Fascist, and anyone who quotes him is a fools fool.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (4) May 14, 2011
"The kinetic motion of the ions when properly insulated will keep the battery warm enough," - SkepticTard

And how does this "kinetic motion of the ions" differ from the kinetic motion of the non-ions in the battery when it comes to maintaining the batteries temperature?

Me thinks that you have some learnded to do.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.6 / 5 (5) May 14, 2011
"The problem with electric cars, CFL bulbs and many other more efficient or less polluting products is that the savings are pocketed by the manufacturers ( or sellers ) while the customers get only the satisfaction of doing something good for the environment." - EPSITard

That is odd, because my electric bill is $20 a month as a result of installing CFL's and more efficient electric power consuming devices.

What has been your failure?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) May 14, 2011
So much stupidity from Vendy regarding fascism and NAZIs who were socialists.
Evidence is quite clear and it is intentional ignorance (stupidity) to claim the National Socialist Party were not socialists.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) May 14, 2011
"One of the main reasons why the socialist character of National Socialism has been quite generally unrecognized, is, no doubt, its alliance with the nationalist groups which represent the great industries and the great landowners. But this merely proves that these groups too -as they have since learnt to their bitter disappointment -have, at least partly, been mistaken as to the nature of the movement. But only partly because -and this is the most characteristic feature of modern Germany many capitalists are themselves strongly influenced by socialistic ideas, and have not sufficient belief in capitalism to defend it with a clear conscience. But, in spite of this, the German entrepreneur class have manifested almost incredible short-sightedness in allying themselves with a move movement of whose strong anti-capitalistic tendencies there should never have been any doubt." Hayek, 1933.
http://www.theroa...lism.htm
FrankHerbert
0.8 / 5 (49) May 14, 2011
"An association fallacy is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association. The two types are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association. Association fallacies are a special case of red herring, and can be based on an appeal to emotion." - Thanks Wikipedia!
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) May 14, 2011
If it looks like a collectivist, acts like a collectivist and speaks like a collectivist, it is a collectivist aka: socialist, fascist, communist, 'progressive', 'liberal',...

"What will it take to abandon the road to serfdom which Americans have traveled during the last sixty years? The fast step is for people to pierce through to reality to realize that what Hayek said was true that the U.S. has, in fact, adopted the Nazi, fascist, and socialist economic principles of regulation of property and redistribution of wealth. The second step is to lose what the Russian people have lost the terrifying and paralyzing fear of politicians and bureaucrats. And, third, since our government has become destructive of the ends for which it was formed, to alter or abolish it and implement new government designed to protect, not destroy, our lives and fortunes." {written in 1992. we are further down the road to serfdom}
http://www.fff.or...892a.asp
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) May 14, 2011
"The U.S. was still swooning over the New Deal. Most intellectuals believed in a strong role for government in the economy.

No one wanted to hear some cranky Austrian exile telling them that the benevolent statism they so loved was little different from the Nazism they'd worked so hard to defeat. And Hayek's dedication of the book to ''the socialists of all parties'' didn't win him many friends."
"''To both, the real enemy, the man with whom they had nothing in common and whom they could not hope to convince, is the liberal of the old type,'' Hayek wrote.

Those old-style liberals believed in private property, free markets and limited government."
"It should be no surprise, then, said Hayek, that the persons who rise to the top of such a government are those who most want to wield power, those who are most ruthless in using power.

That is why the very worst get to the top of socialist states. "
http://mises.org/...p;ID=741
Bob_Wallace
1 / 5 (1) May 15, 2011
Volvo has fixed the cold weather problem by installing an ethanol battery/passenger heater in its C30 EV.

Once EVs get going battery discharge creates heat. All that would be necessary for any EV would be to have an electric battery heater which could be used to pre-heat the batteries while the car is plugged into the grid. The Nissan Leaf can be pre-heated (or cooled) remotely via cell phone.

In very cold climates there might need to be plugin spots both at home and work/school, but we're talking "I can see Russia from my porch" territory here....
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) May 15, 2011
Feb: 09: "The Obama administration will not support a policy of taxing drivers based on their mileage, the Transportation Department said Friday after a published interview in which Secretary Ray LaHood called it an idea "we should look at."
http://articles.c...POLITICS

May '11:
"The Obama Administration has recently floated the idea of a national mileage tax. The government would install electronic tracking equipment in vehicles to determine how many miles drivers traveled, and drivers would pay the tax electronically at gas stations."
http://biggovernm...ad-idea/
Electric vehicles need to pay for roads, too. Tolls based upon vehicle weight, time of day, road, etc can be a most effective way to make most efficient use of roads and if privatized, keep those roads free of potholes and clear of snow in winter.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet May 15, 2011
And how does this "kinetic motion of the ions" differ from the kinetic motion of the non-ions in the battery when it comes to maintaining the batteries temperature?

Me thinks that you have some learnded to do.

You do understand how batteries work, don't you?
mrlewish
not rated yet May 15, 2011
Okay you got me. If I have to endure -40 degree weather I won't buy an EV. Deal?
kaasinees
1 / 5 (3) May 15, 2011
The people in this thread here area bit confused about socialism.
In a socialist state, the state does own public services(for the well being and development of its inhabitants). NOT market businesses, that is for a republican state!

Also oil is not that bad per se. Burning it however is. If we can process products of oil into plastics without burning(microbes anyone?) no harm done.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) May 15, 2011
In a socialist state, the state does own public services(for the well being and development of its inhabitants).

That is always the excuse given by the socialists.
Of course socialism is easier to control when the population is homogenous, is small in numbers and small in area, and has strong sense of morality.
I see that the Dutch are seeing the challenges to their socialism as their population is becoming more foreign born and Muslim.
To compare populations, Netherlands and the US state of FL have about the same number of people in an area twice that of New Jersey.
Howhot
1 / 5 (1) May 15, 2011
If it looks like a collectivist, acts like a collectivist and speaks like a collectivist, it is a collectivist aka: socialist, fascist, communist, 'progressive', 'liberal',...

Good grief. You forgot Conservative, Torri, ... collectivists.
Howhot
1 / 5 (1) May 15, 2011
R2, while you make your point about some all inclusive social state, your flat out WRONG to think that there are not huge benefits to the human condition to pursue the "collective" approach. Actually individualism can be a hindrance to progress, and anything of significance built by men requires some "collective" organization. Your use of socialism is overly broad for describing a collective governing body. And actually I think you use the term as an insult and there is nothing to be insulted about. It's just a form of organization. In the case of countries, it is simply how the poeple have decided to govern themselves. Nothing more.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 15, 2011
When free individuals choose, of their own volition, to pool their resources and work towards a common objective, much can be accomplished.
The essential requirement for a successful mutual enterprise is the freedom to choose.
When individuals are forced by a mob or their govt into a collective to work toward the goal of the collective, failure and misery have been the demonstrated results. This is socialism.
I hope many take it as an insult. I would. I consider collectivists/socialists to be gutless thieves who gang up on individuals to redistribute their wealth.
It's just a form of organization.

These countries were organized under the socialist banner: USSR, National Socialists, DPRK, Kmher Rouge, Cuba, China.
Just another form of organization that murders there 'collective'. I am sure the millions murdered chose how to govern themselves.
KingDWS
not rated yet May 16, 2011
Too bad this has gone of the topic.

For those interested the Kewett /Buddy is a very nice little ev. They have been making them for quite a few years and at one time exported them to the US. You can find a few of them from time to time. The newer ones use li-ion and are pretty good.
kaasinees
1.7 / 5 (6) May 16, 2011
When free individuals choose, of their own volition, to pool their resources and work towards a common objective, much can be accomplished.

Much like consumers pay overpriced products to fill a few people pockets with millions or even billions?
Yeah much choice there mister!
The essential requirement for a successful mutual enterprise is the freedom to choose.

What good will freedom of choice do when the capitalist buy each other out and put high prices? There's a reason for monopoly laws. A healthy market is impossible without socialism. Also public services naturally hold monopolies and thus should be owned by the government for the well-being of the inhabitants.
These countries were organized under the socialist banner: USSR, National Socialists, DPRK, Kmher Rouge, Cuba, China.

I bet you are the guy who staged bin Laden's 3 deaths and the al-quada (spelling?) group. Former CIA?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) May 16, 2011
Much like consumers pay overpriced products

Why would anyone pay more than a product was worth? Unless, maybe, the company is protected by a socialist govt from competitors?
You want to lower the price of products? Get socialist govts out of the way and allow competition.
kaasinees
1.7 / 5 (6) May 16, 2011
Much like consumers pay overpriced products

Why would anyone pay more than a product was worth? Unless, maybe, the company is protected by a socialist govt from competitors?

You mean REPUBLICAN/capitalist government. There is nothing socialist about that.
You want to lower the price of products? Get socialist govts out of the way and allow competition.

Wrong, do you call telecom companies socialist? Nah they are capitalist backed by republicans.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) May 16, 2011
Telecom companies are highly regulated by governments.Quite socialist.
In the Road to Serfdom, Hayek dedicated his book to socialists of ALL parties.
Socialism is govt control of property. It doesn't matter who runs the government, a dictator, a mob, a committee, a parliament, what matters is the degree to which that govt controls private property.
kaasinees
1.7 / 5 (6) May 16, 2011
Telecom companies are highly regulated by governments.Quite socialist.


Giving a monopoly to a company... allowing it to generate large amounts of money without ever needing to invest it to innovate... to compete with others....

CAPITALISM.
FrankHerbert
0.8 / 5 (49) May 16, 2011
Ryggesogn2's idea of capitalism is more accurately described as corporatism.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 16, 2011
Telecom companies are highly regulated by governments.Quite socialist.


Giving a monopoly to a company... allowing it to generate large amounts of money without ever needing to invest it to innovate... to compete with others....

CAPITALISM.

No, that is NOT capitalism.
Who 'gives' a monopoly to a company? Only a govt can do that. That is socialism.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) May 16, 2011
Ryggesogn2's idea of capitalism is more accurately described as corporatism.

Corporatism is a form of socialism.
GE is a great example today. The company CEO is buddy buddy with Obama and govt and lobbies the govt for special favors to limit its competition. In return, the politicians receive campaign contributions and lucrative job prospects after politics.
The revolving door in the financial-govt sector is quite apparent. But then why shouldn't it as the govt does control the money.
The only way to end this form of socialism is not with a different flavor of socialism. The way to end this is to limit the power of the state to control markets, to favor one company over another, to punish companies that don't lobby enough (as they did with Microsoft in the 90s).
Now Obama is punishing coal and oil companies, and raising the cost of energy to us all. This is just one small example among thousands.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 16, 2011
I don't know why Norwegians don't convert their cars over to ethanol. Just about everyone has one or knows someone who has a distillery to make alcohol to drink. Of course it is illegal, but what would you expect when alcohol taxes are so high?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) May 16, 2011
"arrangements bearing some similarity to fascisms corporate state developed in the democratic countries of western Europe, most notably in Scandinavia, Austria, and the Netherlands, but also to some extent in other countries. No one describes these arrangements as fascist; most commonly they are called neocorporatist."
"recent American history has brought forth a multitude of little corporatisms, arrangements within subsectors, industries, or other partial jurisdictions. They have drawn on both national and state government powers.They operate effectively in the defense sector, in many areas of agriculture; in many professional services, such as medicine, dentistry, and hospital care; and in a variety of other areas, such as fishery management and urban redevelopment. These abundant iron triangles normally involve well-organized private interest groups; government regulatory, spending, or lending agencies; and the congressional subcommittees charged with policy oversight .or appropr
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) May 16, 2011
The rest of the story:
"These abundant iron triangles normally involve well-organized private interest groups; government regulatory, spending, or lending agencies; and the congressional subcommittees charged with policy oversight or appropriations. A political economy in which such arrangements predominate, as they do in the United States, is commonly called interest-group liberalism or neopluralism. (Elsewhere I have followed Charlotte Twight in calling it participatory fascism.) But it might just as well be called disaggregated neocorporatism or quasi-corporatism."
http://www.thefre...fascism/
A.K.A. the Regulatory State.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) May 16, 2011
"Indeed, most of the existing regulatory apparatusincluding those regulations widely misperceived as restraints on corporate powerwere vigorously supported, lobbied for, and in some cases even drafted by the corporate elite.[1]

Corporate power depends crucially on government intervention in the marketplace.[2] This is obvious enough in the case of the more overt forms of government favoritism such as subsidies, bailouts,[3] and other forms of corporate welfare; protectionist tariffs; explicit grants of monopoly privilege; and the seizing of private property for corporate use via eminent domain (as in Kelo v. New London)."
http://www.cato-u...ion-now/
kaasinees
1.7 / 5 (6) May 16, 2011
No, that is NOT capitalism.
Who 'gives' a monopoly to a company? Only a govt can do that. That is socialism.

No that is republican or corrupted communism. Socialism will make public services owned by government, not market bussiness.
For it to be called socialist first it must be owned by a government, second it must be a service that serves the public. A government giving a monopoly to a company does not mean it is owned by the government, it means that republican politicians are governing for the well being of that company and not for the well-being of the market or the inhabitants.
Everything you are describing to be wrong about socialism is exactly what a republican or capitalist government is.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) May 16, 2011
For it to be called socialist first it must be owned by a government

A govt that grants a monopoly to a company owns that company. Such a company must do what the govt says or it will loose is special status and be at the mercy of the free market (consumers).

"The socialistic State owns all material factors of production and thus directs it."
"Limitation of the rights of owners as well as formal transference is a means of socialization. If the State takes the power of disposal from the owner piecemeal, by extending its influence over production; if its power to determine what direction production shall take and what kind of production there shall be, {this is called subsidy today} is increased, then the owner is left at last with nothing except the empty name of ownership, and property has passed into the hands of the State."
http://mises.org/...ch2.aspx
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) May 16, 2011
"The terms "Capitalism" and "Capitalistic Production" are political catchwords. They were invented by socialists, not to extend knowledge, but to carp, to criticize, to condemn."
http://mises.org/...x#_edn10
kaasinees
2.1 / 5 (7) May 16, 2011
R2, you can quote any idiot you like.
But really who are you trying to persuade with your lies?
Or do you do not recognize the lies?
I have yet to see you fight any argument with real facts.
What is on your agenda? Who is paying you?
Just come clean, i know you will feel a lot better.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) May 16, 2011
What lies?

"Marx and Engels never tried to refute their opponents with argument. They insulted, ridiculed, derided, slandered, and traduced them, and in the use of these methods their followers are not less expert. Their polemic is directed never against the argument of the opponent, but always against his person."
http://mises.org/...px#_sec2
Mises is correct, again.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) May 16, 2011
Of course a fine example of the failure of socialism in the USA is AMTRAK and the US postal 'service'.
Both provide bad service at high cost to taxpayers.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 16, 2011
Of course a fine example of the failure of socialism in the USA is AMTRAK and the US postal 'service'.
Both provide bad service at high cost to taxpayers.

Who is paying you?

That's amusing. In the USA, socialists like Soros have to pay for propaganda.
Those who support liberty and free markets, FOR ALL, are volunteers.
FrankHerbert
0.9 / 5 (50) May 16, 2011
How is the USPS high cost you moron?
FrankHerbert
0.8 / 5 (49) May 16, 2011
I also have no idea what your problem with their service is. I have no experience with AMTRAK but I hear good things.
kaasinees
2.3 / 5 (6) May 16, 2011
Of course a fine example of the failure of socialism in the USA is AMTRAK and the US postal 'service'.
Both provide bad service at high cost to taxpayers.

No no... How about i take this comparison to my country.

We used to have a government owned postal service, never had any troubles with it, or rarely at all. Ever since its privatization it has been horrible, especially the last couple of years. Missing mails multiple times over, and they were important to, both that should have been sent and received, nobody to compete with so what is their incentive to improve their services??

It should be government owned, that is what i am completely sure of.

Profit maximization... ah the horrors it can produce...
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 16, 2011
I also have no idea what your problem with their service is. I have no experience with AMTRAK but I hear good things.

Not from those who ride it.
It is cheaper and faster to fly from Boston to NYC or DC, the major rail corridor. If one has the time, there is terrific bus service from Boston to NYC.
USPS has improved because they have competition. But they still need to be bailed out.

nobody to compete with

Then it is a govt granted monopoly. If the govt allowed competition, your service would improve.
FrankHerbert
0.8 / 5 (50) May 17, 2011
The USPS is virtually incapable of making a profit because it's constitutionally mandated to send letters to all corners of the US for the same price. Should we just forget about Alaska? You forget the government is NOT a business! It doesn't have to make a profit. The USPS can lose as much money as the government deems what it provides is worth the cost. I doubt the capitol brings in enough money to pay for the Congress's operations. Should Congress have bake sales and lemonade stands to pay for their activities?

Do you know the USPS moves more mail in 3 days than UPS does in a year? How about Fed-Ex? USPS moves as much in 1 day as Fed-Ex does in a year.

Also I ask you again how USPS has high prices? USPS has lower prices than UPS or Fed-Ex on virtually everything that I'm aware of. Did you have to stand in line once to buy stamps? Seriously, I'm wondering where you got this idea. So they should raise prices to cover losses? Then you actually get high prices to bitch about?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 17, 2011
constitutionally mandated to send letters to all corners of the US for the same price.

Where is that in the Constitution?
UPS and Fed-Ex are prohibited from carrying first class mail.
If you need to get important papers delivered overnight, which service will you choose?
If USPS was such a good service, then there would have been no market for UPS or FedEx. Obviously, USPS was not meeting a market need.
FrankHerbert
0.9 / 5 (50) May 17, 2011
Article I, Section 8. I went a little overboard in attributing so much to the Constitution. However the Postal Service is one of the few constitutionally authorized departments.

UPS and Fed-Ex would decline to deliver letters if they could as there is no money in it. It's a public service, not a profit making endeavor.

I use USPS for all shipping unless it's too heavy, then I use UPS or a piano mover. I've never had a problem with USPS however my $2,500 Hammond Organ got some nice dings thanks to UPS.

Also, if UPS and Fed-Ex were as great as you claim they'd control more than the few percent (is it even that much?) of the market they have. Do you know what happens when UPS and Fed-Ex can't find an address? They drop it off at the post office and they deliver it. Seriously.

Fed-Ex also makes a pretty penny off USPS renting their planes. Republicans are always looking to manufacture evidence (ie sabotage working departments) for their own ends so Congress won't let them buy their own
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 17, 2011
the Postal Service is one of the few constitutionally authorized departments.

Why should that matter to socialists? It's a 'living' document.
sabotage working departments

What 'working department' is that?
if UPS and Fed-Ex were as great as you claim they'd control more than the few percent (is it even that much?) of the market they have.

Their competition is subsidized by the taxpayers.
With on-line bill paying services I don't buy many stamps.

Do you know what happens when the post office can't find an address? They return to sender. That just happened to us. The address WAS correct.
FrankHerbert
0.9 / 5 (50) May 17, 2011
The Postal Service's DEBT, which it incurs due to Congress' mandates, is subsidized by taxpayers. If Congress allowed USPS to operate its own planes and eliminate Saturday delivery, maybe the taxpayers would get that money back and not have to pay anymore in the future. Once again this is an example of Republicans trying to prove their ideology through mismanagement of agencies.

Do you know what happens when the post office can't find an address? They return to sender.


I... I... I.. so this is Socialism? What have I done?!
Javinator
5 / 5 (2) May 17, 2011
Do you know what happens when the post office can't find an address? They return to sender. That just happened to us. The address WAS correct.


And what do you think FedEx or UPS would do if they didn't have the USPS to dump it off on when they can't find the address? I sure hope they'd return it to sender...
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 17, 2011
Do you know what happens when the post office can't find an address? They return to sender. That just happened to us. The address WAS correct.


And what do you think FedEx or UPS would do if they didn't have the USPS to dump it off on when they can't find the address? I sure hope they'd return it to sender...

Every package in the hands of UPS or FedEx has a tracking number. First class mail? No.

The Postal Service's DEBT, which it incurs due to Congress' mandates, is subsidized by taxpayers. If Congress allowed USPS to operate its own planes and eliminate Saturday delivery, maybe the taxpayers would get that money back

Sounds like you want to USPS to become a private entity and be free of stupid govt rules. So do I.
Javinator
5 / 5 (2) May 17, 2011
Every package in the hands of UPS or FedEx has a tracking number. First class mail? No.


Doesn't answer the question. How would a tracking number help them find an address they can't find? They'd probably hold it in whatever warehouse it's in and have the sender/recipient pick it up at the depot or charge to have it delivered back if necessary.

FrankHerbert
0.8 / 5 (49) May 17, 2011
No, I want republicans to stop using the postal service as a political football. First they sabotage it, then they want to privatize it. Stop the sabotage.

Let me guess, your mail man is black? Is that the problem?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 17, 2011
First they sabotage it, then they want to privatize it. Stop the sabotage.

That is the excuse EVERY govt agency gives when they fail.
They ALWAYS need more money and more people to do the job.
FrankHerbert
0.8 / 5 (49) May 17, 2011
The Postal Service wants to eliminate Saturday delivery. How is this asking for more money? The Congress also requires the USPS to rent Fed-Ex's planes. For an entity the size of USPS it is ludicrous for them not to have their own planes. This is republican sabotage. They take good programs and ruin them.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 17, 2011
The Postal Service wants to eliminate Saturday delivery. How is this asking for more money? The Congress also requires the USPS to rent Fed-Ex's planes. For an entity the size of USPS it is ludicrous for them not to have their own planes. This is republican sabotage. They take good programs and ruin them.

You want the USPS to have their own fleet of airplanes? Talk about a waste of money.
BTW, the democrats had control of Congress from 2006-2010. What did they do to 'fix' the problem?

The Postal Service wants to eliminate Saturday delivery. How is this asking for more money?

It's called cutting costs or its a political ploy to have citizens pressure Congress to meddle.
FrankHerbert
0.9 / 5 (50) May 17, 2011
So the Postal Service tries to cut costs and that's a "political ploy"?
that_guy
3.7 / 5 (3) May 17, 2011
Do you guys remember my point earlier about taking 20 seconds to google a subject before arguing about it?

Try googling the last time the post office got ANY taxpayer money. That's right...back in the early 80s, when they were restructuring it as a separate organization from the government (But still wholly owned by the gov.)

So the USPS has been subsidized by nothing for almost 3 decades. The current problem could simply be done away with by letting the Post Office do its job - either by closing uncompetitive post offices (Which is being sabatoged mostly by republicans, because they don't want a post office in THEIR rural district closed), or by raising postage by 8 cents an item.

Either way rygg...I would rather pay 50 cents a letter to the post office than pay $7 for fed ex (Yes, I looked up the cost to Fed ex a letter at the lowest rate. look it up and do the math yourself if you have any problem with it.)

that_guy
3.7 / 5 (3) May 17, 2011
obviously usps was not meeting a market need
Sure, because if one company could do everything perfectly, there would only be one company because it does everything perfectly.
first class letters do not have tracking numbers

But if you want to pay $3 for a certified letter, you get a tracking number for less than half of the cost of shipping a fedex letter. and important documents are only sent fedex if speed is the factor. otherwise, certified mail is used.

We have found that usps and fedex services are premium speed services. However, for shipping, you may realize that amazon super saver shipping is usps and is faster than fedex or usps sometimes. personally, I don't need EVERYTHING to get here tomorrow, especially if I can get it for a quarter as much and wait an extra 3 or 4 days.
that_guy
3.7 / 5 (3) May 17, 2011
But rygg is right about amtrak. It is a white elephant. Regardless, there are plenty of reasons why long distance passenger rail travel struggles in the us. Culture, population density, land type, low ridership.

I'd like to point out that there are no competitors to amtrak, because two companies fighting over nothing is no better than one company struggling with nothing.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) May 17, 2011
there are no competitors to amtrak

Planes, buses and autos.

"For those who dont know, the post office has no competition, by virtue of government decree."
""It doesnt matter what I think about the new rates, since I havent a choice." The reporter who interviewed me admitted that she was surprised to have never considered that fact. By law, we have to use the United States Postal Service (USPS) for delivery of first-class mail."
"Digging a little deeper provides the truth: the USPS is subsidized. "
http://www.lewroc...n21.html
"Effective January 1, 1987, officers and career employees
hired since December 31, 1983, except for those covered
by the Dual System, are covered by the Federal Employees
Retirement System Act of 1986."
"Facilities leased from General Services
Administration"
"Capital contributions of the U.S. government $ 3,034 $ 3,034 $ 3,034"
http://www.usps.c...ar05.pdf
that_guy
3 / 5 (2) May 17, 2011
You are simply a troll for being a troll's sake, aren't you.

Obviously I was talking about no competitors in long distance passenger rail. And you could have even agreed with me and kept your anti-government stance, with it supporting companies that just don't belong. But no, you go with competing transportation industries rather than understand me.
that_guy
3 / 5 (2) May 17, 2011
oh, I'll respond to your capital contributions part too. The government subsidizes the post office for mail sent out for government services. Since the government generally doesn't pay postage, it pays the post office. I'm sure your mind is unable to wrap around this, admittedly complicated solution, but I assure you that it makes sense in keeping the USPS books clean and seperate from the fed, while still adhereing to the constitutional mandate that created the post office as a part of the government.
kaasinees
2.3 / 5 (6) May 17, 2011
"Digging a little deeper provides the truth: the USPS is subsidized. "

I cant really discuss about USPS but knowing the kind of lies from some idiots you quoted before i will assume it is a lie.

Even if it was true, what harm is done? the government pays people to do jobs. Knowing that people can send mail cheaply for a decent service i am only glad.
I rather trust someone who worries about the mail getting delivered than someone who worries about making more profit.
BTW we have UPS and FedEx(i think) here to, But they rather transport packages and not mail.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) May 17, 2011
First they sabotage it, then they want to privatize it. Stop the sabotage.

That is the excuse EVERY govt agency gives when they fail.
They ALWAYS need more money and more people to do the job.

Considering the government is full of people like you, who are posting rather than doing their job, it's no wonder they need more people and money.

Stop sucking the teet if you want off the bus.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) May 17, 2011
what harm is done? t

Yes, that is an impossible question to answer when the govt won't allow the question to be answered.
We do know free market businesses have taken market share from the USPS.
I rather trust someone who worries about the mail getting delivered than someone who worries about making more profit.

The only way the profit can be EARNED is when the mail IS delivered. That is the way a free market works.
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 17, 2011
You are simply a troll for being a troll's sake, aren't you.

Obviously I was talking about no competitors in long distance passenger rail. And you could have even agreed with me and kept your anti-government stance, with it supporting companies that just don't belong. But no, you go with competing transportation industries rather than understand me.

Why should agree with you when you are wrong?
What does a passenger train do? Transport people from one place to another for a fee. People do have choices, planes, autos, bus, so Amtrak does have competition.
I think the new bus services in the NE corridor will really eat into any Amtrak advantage.
I would think the 'progressives' would be up in arms at Amtrak subsidies as many customers are wealthy business people and politicians who can work (cell phones,internet) while traveling.
kaasinees
2.3 / 5 (6) May 17, 2011
The only way the profit can be EARNED is when the mail IS delivered. That is the way a free market works.

No, that is how a healthy market works. A free market tends to backfire, that is one of the many reasons socialism has evolved.
The first motive of a company is to make profit, getting the mail delivered is just a inconvenience. Lets say the company has found a new way to maximize profit, causing unforeseen side effects, tons of mail not getting delivered and lost, this can hurt people BADLY you have no idea. Or how about this... lets say one big player in the market goes bankrupt and can no longer deliver mail, who will deliver its mail? Not other players will do that because it will cost them money, so what todo?
Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations.

And you are one of his slaves.

what harm is done? t

Yes, that is an impossible question to answer when the govt won't allow the question to be answered.


No you seem to have the answer. Enlighten us.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 17, 2011
A free market tends to backfire, that is one of the many reasons socialism has evolved.

When? Where?
The first motive of a company is to make profit, getting the mail delivered is just a inconvenience.

It would be quite inconvenient if delivering mail was not the business they were in.
Businesses can't steal money like a govt does. They must earn it. Businesses earn their money by providing a product or service a customer is willing to trade his money for. Note, WILLING,not coerced. That is what govts do.

"Robberies by subsidy or by tariff, though they violate equity quite as much as highway robbery does, do not violate the law; on the contrary, they are perpetrated by means of the law; this fact only makes them worse, but the magistrates have no quarrel with them. " Economic Sophisms, Bastiat
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 17, 2011
"the losses to society from non-governmental market power are apt to be less severe and of shorter duration than the losses caused by government-supported market power."
"in Book IV, Chapter 16, paragraph 126 of Human Action that "The monopoly problem mankind has to face today is not an outgrowth of the operation of the market economy. It is a product of purposive action on the part of governments. It is not one of the evils inherent in capitalism as the demagogues trumpet. It is, on the contrary, the fruit of policies hostile to capitalism." "
http://www.econli...ootnote7
Fortunately for the customer, technologies are demonstrating how costly the USPS monopoly is.
kaasinees
1.7 / 5 (6) May 17, 2011
how costly the USPS monopoly is.

What cost?
When? Where?

All the time.
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (3) May 18, 2011
R2, Are you a joke? Really, you are going to pick on the USPS as being a monopoly, when they are clearly a necessary function of government. How will the water company bill come to you without a functioning Postal Service? America is a country based on Laws, (socialist or otherwise). We function by law and the consent of the governed. Not your bazaar and hostile over reach into Stalinism you seem to advocate.
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (3) May 18, 2011
I've read your debate R2, and frankly you need a course in "concern for your fellow man".
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (3) May 18, 2011
Oh one last opinion R2; Your a "Right-Wing Social Engineer" It's a very good label for you.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 18, 2011
Oh one last opinion R2; Your a "Right-Wing Social Engineer" It's a very good label for you.

The NAZIs and Soviets fought each other so viciously because they were both socialist systems competing for power.
I guess 'How' just can't understand those who do not want to 'engineer' society; those who want the state to be limited to protecting every individual's property rights; those that believe 'engineering society' is a fool's errand that leads to misery and death every time.
As Heinlein said there are two kinds of people, those who want to control others and those who do not.
I have no desire or interest in controlling or coercing others to my vision of utopia.
Most here seem to have such a desire and can't understand those who have no such desire.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 18, 2011
USPS:
"The U.S. Postal Service will begin to default on its financial obligations just over four months from now unless Congress takes action to relieve it of its obligation to pre-fund retiree health care accounts, its leader told lawmakers Tuesday. "
"Carper said it would also let USPS management run the organization with less Congressional interference.

"No business, facing the kind of challenges the postal service faces today, would survive very long if they were told how many retail outlets they should have or where they should be located, or if they were prevented from making operational changes or taking advantage of the resources they have at their disposal," Carper said. "Yet that's what Congress does to the postal service."
http://www.federa...=2387275
It's too bad other democrats don't appreciate the effects of govt interference in businesses.
that_guy
3 / 5 (2) May 18, 2011
...But it's by and large the republicans who are hamstringing the post office...the democrats are more interested in letting the USPS do what it needs to work.

not that the republicans are to blame for being in rural districts with unprofitable post offices, but please if you will blame, at least blame in the right direction.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 18, 2011
democrats are more interested in letting the USPS do what it needs to work.

Democrats want to privatize the post office? Prove it.

"But many experts argue that true reform requires the Postal Service to privatize, which would include opening up the first-class mail business to competition. Privatization has worked in many other countries. Germany's Deutsche Post, which runs the DHL brand, has been private since 2000 and is now the world's largest logistics group. The European Union is in the midst of privatizing the postal services of all its member nations. And in 2005, Japan approved the privatization of its postal service, Japan Post."
http://money.cnn....fortune/
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet May 18, 2011
democrats are more interested in letting the USPS do what it needs to work.

Democrats want to privatize the post office? Prove it.

"But many experts argue that true reform requires the Postal Service to privatize, which would include opening up the first-class mail business to competition. Privatization has worked in many other countries. Germany's Deutsche Post, which runs the DHL brand, has been private since 2000 and is now the world's largest logistics group. The European Union is in the midst of privatizing the postal services of all its member nations. And in 2005, Japan approved the privatization of its postal service, Japan Post."
http://money.cnn....fortune/

It has become the most corrupt company in Japan.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) May 18, 2011
How private is Japan Post? It is much more than a mail delivery service.
Japan Post is a bank and an insurance company and any bank in the world is essentially owned by the government that prints the money.
Howhot
2.3 / 5 (3) May 20, 2011
The question R2 is do you really really want the USPS to be like Japans? Think of the pony express and all we did to make sure that mail arrives on time. Your typical private venture would never do anything like that (You see, there is a payback to the government to have a functioning post office if it pays back in building commerce).

The same could be said of the Electric CAR. For me, it would be fantastic. I just commute and my City isn't all that good with mass transit. So with my Solar Panels helping to offset the cost, it makes perfect sense. It would payback to have the government support electric car owners. I've read the reports and it looks very good in terms of payback to both EV users and Gov taxes.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet May 21, 2011
How private is Japan Post? It is much more than a mail delivery service.
Japan Post is a bank and an insurance company and any bank in the world is essentially owned by the government that prints the money.

Refuting your own arguments now? Good, saves the rest of us the time.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) May 21, 2011
Your typical private venture would never do anything like that

"The Pony Express was founded by William H. Russell, William B. Waddell, and Alexander Majors. Plans for the Pony Express were spurred by the threat of the Civil War and the need for faster communication with the West."
http://www.ponyex.../history
The Pony Express was a private enterprise.
And the typical private enterprise WOULD do that.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 21, 2011
The Pony Express was a private enterprise.
That depended on federal protection and funding.
FrankHerbert
1 / 5 (50) May 21, 2011
The Pony Express was a private enterprise.
And the typical private enterprise WOULD do that.


"...the horse line was never a financial success, leading its founders to bankruptcy."
http://www.ponyex.../history
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) May 22, 2011
The Pony Express was a private enterprise.
And the typical private enterprise WOULD do that.


"...the horse line was never a financial success, leading its founders to bankruptcy."
http://www.ponyex.../history

The US postal service is not a financial success. Like many businesses, the pony express lost out to new technology, the telegraph.
"the Pony Express had more than 100 stations, 80 riders, and between 400 and 500 horses. The express route was extremely hazardous, but only one mail delivery was ever lost."
Quite an enterprise for its day.
Then, govt controlled communication, the telegraph, began. http://cprr.org/M...860.html
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 22, 2011
The US postal service is not a financial success. Like many businesses, the pony express lost out to new technology, the telegraph.
And the postal service ran a profit until e-mail became widespread. Your point?
Howhot
3 / 5 (2) May 23, 2011
Well I've learned more about the Pony Express than I ever knew thanks to a debate on Electric Cars in Norway! Still, think of AIR MAIL. 29cent could get you a first class letter from here to Finland in two weeks. So what's up with that? Air mail was another advanced service provided by a Gov run USPS. It was the NASA of it's day.

SH is right, e-mail has devastated one large customer base from USPS core business (and I like it). However, R2, there are Government and commercial functions that need cheap, daily, hand delivered materials to a home address. The USPS is part of the worlds business model and granted there are huge competitive pressures, but what model would you use to take your $20.00 check for a water bill over to Atlanta for 41 cents?
I mean R2, Government can do good things with good decent people in charge.