Senate Bill S.786 could kill NWS internet weather products

Matt Barrow wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Matt Barrow wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

In the instant
case, it is not feasible for private concerns to operate the
weather
bureau infrastructure, inclusing constellations of weather
satellites
and so on.

Oh, like the constellation of communications satellites?
And the broadcast groups?

How many of those were put into orbit by privately developed and
operated launch vehicles?

Every one of them.

NASA has no manufacturing capacity of it own.


As you will recall,
in . com I wrote:

The proper and effective way to privatize services of this sort
is to put the operational support for the service up for competative
bidding by prospective contractors and NOT by privatizing the data
themselves.

Which is precisely how NASA builds, launches and operates satellites.

That is not the sort of privatization being proposed for the NWS.

What is proposed is that the information to be distributed be
made into a privately owned intelectual property--like was done
with the Landsat data that effectively destroyed it's value to
anyone but the company to which it was given.




These are much the same people as run the Postal Disservice and
Amtrak.

Unhappy with the USPS are you? It has already been privatized.

Man, you're nievity is incredible.

Here the story a while back about the USPS fining people for carrying
first
class mail?

I was not aware that the USPS had authority to fine anyone. Federal
Law sets aside the carriage of first class mail for the USPS so
that all citizens can have their first class mail deliverd for
the same price. Those who violate that law may be enjoined or
finedby the courts I would presume, though maybe the USPS police
(e.g. the stamp cops) ocnduct the investigations. Otherwise,
persons in some parts of the country would be effectively without
mail service. Some people think that's OK, you know, the sort of
people who only think the benefits they get from government are
appropriate.

....

Yup. They took decades to convert to faster means of transport that
UPS and
FexEx had from day ONE.

UPS and Fedex perform different services. However, I have never had
the deliver problems with the USPS that I have had with UPS. Not
much experience with Fedex, nor will I since they are so friggin'
expensive.


The comparison is not the Post Office and the modern day USPS, it's
FedEx,
UPS, and a slew of local delivery services/


No it is not. None of those are privitized delivery networks for
product obtained at taxpayer expense. The current proposal has
us paying the government to obtain the data and make the forcasts,
and they pay somebody else to be able to access them.


Amtrak could not compete with the heavily subsidized airline
industry regardless of who managed it.

Want to compare subsidies for the airlines versus Amtrak?

Go ahead. Take an especially close look at fuel costs. Be sure
to include the United Airlines (spit) pension plan.

... But riddle me this, is the market
for weather reporting more lucrative in heavily populated areas
or in sparsley populated areas? Which of those two are the
preferred areas for GA?

Non-sequitur -- the market is nation wide.

'The' market for first class mail is nation wide too. Where do those
small time outfits illegally delivering first class mail spring up,
in the business districts of major cities or in the backcountry of
Montana?


Again, get a clue rather than the bilge the media and your handlers
shoved
down your throat and which you uncritically swallowed.

Oh, you're one of those paranoid nut-jobs, eh?

--

FF

wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:

Blueskies wrote:




This could end up like things in Russia. Public money funded

resources are deemed too inefficient to be run by the

government, so the assets are put up for bid to private companies.

The private company acquires the asset, and then

sells the service to the public.Very bad idea for the NWS, very

bad idea for our freeways, very bad idea for our

airways...

I'm not sure it is all that bad. I think if most "public" services

were

provided by a free enterprise system, then we'd get a lot more in
aggregate for our money.


Probably so for some services, I dunno about most. In the instant
case, it is not feasible for private concerns to operate the weather
bureau infrastructure, inclusing constellations of weather satellites
and so on. There is also a need for consistant (preferably high)
quality and availabllity from the standpoint of public saftey.

The proposal would not significantly reduce the goernment's costs,
but would significantly reduce the public benefit. Not good.

A similar program during the Reagan era privatized much of the
Landsat data, after the Governement had paid for the programs
to obtain and archive it. The result was that it was priced
beyond reach of a lot of researchers. Oil companies could
afford it though.


The point is that we would have to have most taxes go away in order for
this to happen. If we paid no income tax at all, then we could afford
to pay quite a bit for the services that we actually need. There is no
question that government redistributes wealth in many ways. What I
don't know is what things would look like if the wealth was distributed
by a free market rather than by government. I really don't know who
benefits the most from the redistribution, but given that much of
government is now involved not with providing services, but with the
redistribution process itself (IRS as one major example), which adds
zero economic value, it is an interesting thought experiment as to what
things would look like if this waste were put to use productively.



It all comes down to what is less costly, the waste in government or

the

profit margin that a private enterprise would require. If the

private

enterprise is efficient enough that it can make a profit and still

cost

less than a government agency, then it is a good deal overall.



Not in the instant case. The government would still have all
the expense of operating a weather service--then a private concern
would get to sell the fruits of that tax money. E.g. Corporate
Welfare without even the meager benefits that something like a
subsidized sports stadium brings a community.

The proper and effective way to privatize services of this sort
is to put the operational support for the service up for competative
bidding by prospective contractors and NOT by privatizing the data
themselves.

I agree that any transition would be painful. I was just trying to
imagine what things could look like if the services were provided more
efficiently. Our revenue collection process now is a huge resource hog
that provides no intrinsic value. I can't find the source now, but I
recently saw a summary of how much money is spent simply related to
collection income taxes. This included the cost of the IRS, and all tax
preparation services such as H&R Block, tax software, tax attorneys,
CPAs, etc. The number of people and amount of money spent simply
counting and collecting taxes (and trying to avoid the same) was simply
staggering. Think how much more competitive our economy would be if
these people were actually growing, mining or making things or doing
something else with intrinsic value.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
The point is that we would have to have most taxes go away in order for
this to happen. If we paid no income tax at all, then we could afford
to pay quite a bit for the services that we actually need. There is no
question that government redistributes wealth in many ways. What I
don't know is what things would look like if the wealth was distributed
by a free market rather than by government.

Does it matter how it would be distributed? In any case, it would be
distributed to those who provided goods and services to people in freely
accepted transactions. The key word is "freely"...ya know, _freedom_!!

I really don't know who
benefits the most from the redistribution,

Pols, bureaucrats and those with political pull.

but given that much of
government is now involved not with providing services, but with the
redistribution process itself (IRS as one major example), which adds
zero economic value, it is an interesting thought experiment as to what
things would look like if this waste were put to use productively.

It would like like a truly "Free Country".



I agree that any transition would be painful. I was just trying to
imagine what things could look like if the services were provided more
efficiently.

Prosperity would skyrocket.

(Imagine the fellow whose parents spoiled him all his life, then tossed him
out of the house.)


Our revenue collection process now is a huge resource hog
that provides no intrinsic value.

Think of the mafia!

I can't find the source now, but I
recently saw a summary of how much money is spent simply related to
collection income taxes. This included the cost of the IRS, and all tax
preparation services such as H&R Block, tax software, tax attorneys,
CPAs, etc. The number of people and amount of money spent simply
counting and collecting taxes (and trying to avoid the same) was simply
staggering.

Not only the cost of collecting, but the bureaucratic overhead, not to
mention the Gestapo-like tactics of the collection agencies. Not to mention
the inversion of "servants" and "masters".

Think how much more competitive our economy would be if
these people were actually growing, mining or making things or doing
something else with intrinsic value.

There is no such thing as "intrinsic" value. Only value to people apply to
things.

Matt Barrow wrote:


I can't find the source now, but I
recently saw a summary of how much money is spent simply related to
collection income taxes. This included the cost of the IRS, and all tax
preparation services such as H&R Block, tax software, tax attorneys,
CPAs, etc. The number of people and amount of money spent simply
counting and collecting taxes (and trying to avoid the same) was simply
staggering.

But how much of this is solvable not by eliminating the taxation process,
but by (honestly, this time) simplifying it. In this day of automation,
the state of tax preparation is incredible to the point of offense. I
would not tolerate this in a vendor from whom I was purchasing by choice.

That the government has yet to get this right - along with any other
technological project of significance, like the FBI's fiasco - is a good
point for private enterprise. However, there are inherent inefficiencies
with that approach too.

Every payment has a cost, even in an efficient (ie. not government {8^)
world. The efficiency of the payment (ie. the amount that goes to overhead
of the payment infrastructure) drops as the actual cost of the purchased
item/service drops. In other words, it's more efficient to pay a single
large sum than several smaller sums.

This gets especially bad in the range called "micropayments", for which the
world is still waiting on a good (accepted) solution.

By aggregating several purchases, taxes do (rather: could in theory) provide
efficiency.

If only it were done well.

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
[...]
By aggregating several purchases, taxes do (rather: could in theory)
provide
efficiency.

If only it were done well.

Not sure if you really believe this or not, but your suggestion makes the
assumption that taxes are only about paying for services. They are not.
Much of the complexity found in tax law is about social engineering and
catering to special-interest groups.

It would be hard to simplify taxes while still preserving those goals, held
dear by those who control tax law.

Pete

Andrew Gideon wrote:

Matt Barrow wrote:



I can't find the source now, but I
recently saw a summary of how much money is spent simply related to
collection income taxes. This included the cost of the IRS, and all tax
preparation services such as H&R Block, tax software, tax attorneys,
CPAs, etc. The number of people and amount of money spent simply
counting and collecting taxes (and trying to avoid the same) was simply
staggering.


But how much of this is solvable not by eliminating the taxation process,
but by (honestly, this time) simplifying it. In this day of automation,
the state of tax preparation is incredible to the point of offense. I
would not tolerate this in a vendor from whom I was purchasing by choice.

Yes, a flat income, sales or VAT tax could certainly eliminate much of
the government bureaucracy.


That the government has yet to get this right - along with any other
technological project of significance, like the FBI's fiasco - is a good
point for private enterprise. However, there are inherent inefficiencies
with that approach too.

Such as? There are often inequities in private enterprise, depending on
how you define equity, but typically the efficiency is quite high over
time as the inefficient players die out.


Every payment has a cost, even in an efficient (ie. not government {8^)
world. The efficiency of the payment (ie. the amount that goes to overhead
of the payment infrastructure) drops as the actual cost of the purchased
item/service drops. In other words, it's more efficient to pay a single
large sum than several smaller sums.

This gets especially bad in the range called "micropayments", for which the
world is still waiting on a good (accepted) solution.

By aggregating several purchases, taxes do (rather: could in theory) provide
efficiency.

If only it were done well.

Yes, that is the crux of the problem. Government has no incentive to do
this well.


Matt

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Matt Barrow wrote:


I can't find the source now, but I
recently saw a summary of how much money is spent simply related to
collection income taxes. This included the cost of the IRS, and all
tax
preparation services such as H&R Block, tax software, tax attorneys,
CPAs, etc. The number of people and amount of money spent simply
counting and collecting taxes (and trying to avoid the same) was simply
staggering.

But how much of this is solvable not by eliminating the taxation process,
but by (honestly, this time) simplifying it. In this day of automation,
the state of tax preparation is incredible to the point of offense. I
would not tolerate this in a vendor from whom I was purchasing by choice.

Check your cutting/snipping. That's not my post (with three levels of
indentation)



That the government has yet to get this right - along with any other
technological project of significance, like the FBI's fiasco - is a good
point for private enterprise. However, there are inherent inefficiencies
with that approach too.

Every payment has a cost, even in an efficient (ie. not government {8^)
world. The efficiency of the payment (ie. the amount that goes to
overhead
of the payment infrastructure) drops as the actual cost of the purchased
item/service drops. In other words, it's more efficient to pay a single
large sum than several smaller sums.

Government does not derive just powers from it's level of efficiency, but
from it's moral base. IOW, there are things a government MUST do by itself
(and things that it MUST NOT) due to the nature of it's power. A government
that can ititiate force against it's citizens or others is a THUG. This fact
does not go away regardless of how man people vote for it.

A legitimate governmetn cannot do anything that an individual citizen can.



This gets especially bad in the range called "micropayments", for which
the
world is still waiting on a good (accepted) solution.

By aggregating several purchases, taxes do (rather: could in theory)
provide
efficiency.

If only it were done well.

Efficiently, but not morally.

It all comes down to what is less costly, the waste in government or
the
profit margin that a private enterprise would require. If the
private
enterprise is efficient enough that it can make a profit and still
cost
less than a government agency, then it is a good deal overall.


Not in the instant case. The government would still have all
the expense of operating a weather service--then a private concern
would get to sell the fruits of that tax money. E.g. Corporate
Welfare without even the meager benefits that something like a
subsidized sports stadium brings a community.

The proper and effective way to privatize services of this sort
is to put the operational support for the service up for competative
bidding by prospective contractors and NOT by privatizing the data
themselves.



You notice they don't want to maintain the 350 or so ASOS's around the
country many of which are in remote locations. I maintain about 9 of them
along with a radar computer systems river gages precip gages alert
transmitters (NWR) etc etc. They could not do this and make a profit!

On Sat, 07 May 2005 12:31:16 GMT, "Blueskies"
wrote in
: :

very bad idea for our airways...

Unfortunately, it's not such a bad idea for big business.