Gov/LE: commercial dog trainer and tale of 2 K9(1 beaten to death, other starved)

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

theinvisibleheart

New member
After playing with a professional dog trainer's dog, it occurred to me that I've never heard of a professional dog trainer or a private owner of a professionally trained dog either starving or beating a professionally trained dog to death. In the following 2 articles, one K-9 officer starved his K-9 rescue dog so that it died of starvation and dehydration (confirmed via post-mortem examination in which it was found that the dog went from healthy 66lb to 33lb) and another K-9 officer repeatedly kicked his K-9 until it died. These two different K-9 officers were veteran police officers by the way.

Could it be that an asset worth large sum of money(trained dog) is too valuable to be kicked to death or starved to death when it's your own money (in commercial/private sector) but not when it's the government? Kind of reminds me of agency gears and public goods, despite anticipated posters claiming how close the tie are between K-9 officers and their dogs.

How come trained dogs are not beaten or starved to death in commercial sector where it's regarded as commodities? Could it be that free market and private ownership is a much better caretaker than the government?

How come a professional dog trainer doesn't waste the asset (trained dog) under his/her care? Or a private sector owner of a trained dog?

MORAL/POINT OF THE STORY:
________________________________________________________________
1. People take better care of resources if it's their own or if they have paid for it. This is the reason why a professional dog trainer doesn't starve or beat their dogs to death simply because nobody throws away or burn or trash thousand dollar bills. A trained dog is a very valuable asset.

FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE APT TO MISUNDERSTAND THE ABOVE, IT MEANS IF A TRAINED DOG COST $10,000:

(i) FREQUENCY OF STARVING/BEATING TO DEATH OF $10,000 DOG IS LESS IF THE OWNER PAID FOR IT
(ii) FREQUENCY OF STARVING/BEATING TO DEATH OF $10,000 DOG IS LESS IF THE CARETAKER/OWNER HAVE TO BEAR THE COST OF THE ACTION

A very common example that is used most of the time is public vs. private restrooms. Most of the time, private restrooms are cleaner than public restrooms. It doesn't mean every private restroom is cleaner than every public restrooms. It means on average, people take care better care of private restrooms that they are responsible for than public restrooms.


2. People and agency take better care of resources (control cost) if their compensation/income was tied to how they performed in their jobs. With most government jobs, be it post office or police or public school, pay is not tied to performance.

A dog trainer or a caretaker of a trained dog that was owned by a corporate entity would most likely not abuse the trained dog. Why? Because abusing the resources under their control doesn't increase their profit and in fact, does the exact opposite (increase cost) and thereby, decrease net profit (total revenue - total cost).

FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE APT TO MISUNDERSTAND THE ABOVE, IT MEANS IF A TRAINED DOG COST $10,000:

a corporation which subsist on limited profit and faces competition is less likely to waste a $10,000 trained dog because every $10,000 TRAINED DOG THAT THEY STARVE OR BEAT TO DEATH comes from the shareholders and/or other owners of the corporation.

IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IN COMMERCIAL/PRIVATE WORLD, THERE ARE ZERO ABUSE OR WASTE. IT SIMPLY MEANS, IF I AM BEARING THE COST OF MY HARMFUL BEHAVIOR (I'M PAYING FOR IT) AND OTHER PEOPLE (OWNER, OTHER COMPETITORS IN THE MARKET) HOLD ME ACCOUNTABLE, I'M LESS LIKELY TO ENGAGE IN IT.

TO REPEAT, COMPETITIVE FORCES IN THE MARKET HOLD ME ACCOUNTABLE.


3. Competition moderates individual and organizational behavior. We've all had services by crappy commercial companies and government branches (DMV, USPS, etc.). The difference is that in the long run, crappy commercial companies does not persist forever unlike government entities. With government entities, just replacing few personnels does not change organizational behavior and culture. In commercial world, inefficient companies with poor reputation do go bankrupt. With government, this moderating behavior does not happen.


4. You want to maximize labor mobility (i.e., firing and hiring of workers). In commercial world, if an individual wasted a valuable asset like a trained dog for no reason, there would be no lengthy investigation during which the guilty party would be paid. Termination would most likely be swift and w/o pay. For this reason, closed union shop is not a good idea.

BTW, THE ABOVE POINTS ARE KIND OF COMMON SENSE IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT. I'M MUCH MORE LIKELY TO TAKE CARE OF ANY ASSET IF IT'S MINE OR IF I'M RESPONSIBLE FOR IT AND BEAR THE COST OF WASTING IT.

IT DOESN'T MEAN THERE ARE NO PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS OR CORPORATE ENTITIES THAT DOES NOT WASTE A $10,000 RESOURCE, BE IT DOG OR ANY OTHER PIECE OF EQUIPMENT. However, most individuals doesn't pay $10,000 for a trained dog and starve/beat it to death because that dog represent $10,000 out of their own pocket. For corporations, wasting a $10,000 dog doesn't make economic sense.


Furthermore, if there are two firms: firm A routinely mismanages the care of $10,000 trained dog so that it keeps on dying. Firm B is in the same business but doesn't mismanage the care of $10,000 trained dogs so that it's bottom line (net profit) is higher. Shareholders are likely to sell shares of firm A and buy shares of firm B (higher bottom line).

Above example doesn't mean firm A (firm which wastes resources) doesn't exist in real world. It does. But in the long run, firms which depend on performance specific revenue cannot afford to indefinitely waste its resources like the government.

I hope I have cleared up the matter and/or beaten it to death.
________________________________________________________________


1. Sgt. Allen Cockfield of Miami PD (K-9 ofc for 25 years) kicked his K-9 repeatedly when it barked during training and the dog later died. BTW, until his arrest, Sgt. Cockfield was placed on pay.

http://www.local10.com/news/13416353/detail.html


Police Officer Charged In K-9 Partner's Death
German Shepherd Became Unconscious During Training Exercise
________________________________________________________________
POSTED: 9:22 pm EDT May 30, 2007

Sgt. Allen Cockfield turned himself in Wednesday afternoon to investigators at the Turner-Gilford Knight Correctional Center after
an arrest warrant was issued by the State Attorney's office.

The charges stem from an incident in which a 4-year-old K-9 named "Duke" collapsed on June 7, 2006, during training. The German Shepherd was rushed to Knowles Animal Clinic, where it later died.

A source told Local 10 that Duke had barked when it wasn't supposed to during a training exercise at the Miami Dade Training Bureau. It was participating in training with the rest of the K-9 unit. The source said that after Duke barked, Cockfield "lost it" and kicked the dog
several times.
________________________________________________________________


2. Ofc. Rondal Laroy Brown starved his rescue K-9 dog so that it went from healthy 66lb to 33lb when it died. It must have being incredibly painful for the animal to die from dehydration and starvation.


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8VALQ4O2&show_article=1

Miami Cop Charged in Dog Death
Mar 10 12:06 PM US/Eastern
Miami Police Officer Faces Cruelty Charges In K-9 Partners Death
________________________________________________________________
MIAMI (AP) - A Miami police officer surrendered Monday to face animal cruelty and other charges in the death of his K-9 partner, a female
bloodhound named Dynasty.

Officer Rondal Laroy Brown, 48, will be released on bail, his attorney said.

An investigation showed that Dynasty, who was donated to the Miami Police Department in 2004 and specialized in finding missing people, was in good health in January 2007 and weighed 66 pounds. In November when she died, the 4-year-old dog weighed only 33 pounds, had sunken eyes and missing hair, and had a wound on one paw.

Brown reported the dog had died on Nov. 30 and told a supervisor she had gotten loose and may have eaten some rat poison at a nearby
construction site. But a necropsy revealed Dynasty suffered from severe malnutrition and dehydration.
________________________________________________________________
 
Last edited:
What's your point? I don't think anyone supports animal abuse. If the two stories are true (out of how many?) they are in deep doggie doodoo.
 
Yeah what is your point, have read your post several times and am trying to firgure out what you want to discuss. Unless this is just the typical bash the police by pointing out a rotten apple in the orchard.
 
Re: Point Of The Story

1. People take better care of resources if it's their own or if they have paid for it. This is the reason why a professional dog trainer doesn't starve or beat their dogs to death simply because nobody throws away or burn or trash thousand dollar bills. A trained dog is a very valuable asset.

FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE APT TO MISUNDERSTAND THE ABOVE, IT MEANS IF A TRAINED DOG COST $10,000:

(i) FREQUENCY OF STARVING/BEATING TO DEATH OF $10,000 DOG IS LESS IF THE OWNER PAID FOR IT
(ii) FREQUENCY OF STARVING/BEATING TO DEATH OF $10,000 DOG IS LESS IF THE CARETAKER/OWNER HAVE TO BEAR THE COST OF THEIR ACTION (THAT OF WASTING $10,000 DOG (SCARCE RESOURCE))

A very common example that is used most of the time is public vs. private restrooms. Most of the time, private restrooms are cleaner than public restrooms. It doesn't mean every private restroom is cleaner than every public restrooms. It means on average, people take care better care of private restrooms that they are responsible for than public restrooms.

FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE APT TO MISUNDERSTAND THE PRIOR PARAGRAPH, IT DOES NOT MEAN EVERY PRIVATE BATHROOM IS CLEANER THAN EVERY PUBLIC BATHROOM. It simply means that on the whole, people take better care of their own bathroom.


2. People and agency take better care of resources (control cost) if their compensation/income was tied to how they performed in their jobs. With most government jobs, be it post office or police or public school, pay is not tied to performance.

A dog trainer or a caretaker of a trained dog that was owned by a corporate entity would most likely not abuse the trained dog. Why? Because abusing the resources under their control doesn't increase their profit and in fact, does the exact opposite (increase cost) and thereby, decrease net profit (total revenue - total cost).

FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE APT TO MISUNDERSTAND THE ABOVE, IT MEANS IF A TRAINED DOG COST $10,000:

a corporation which subsist on limited profit and faces competition is less likely to waste a $10,000 trained dog because every $10,000 TRAINED DOG THAT THEY STARVE OR BEAT TO DEATH comes from the shareholders and/or other owners of the corporation.

IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IN COMMERCIAL/PRIVATE WORLD, THERE ARE ZERO ABUSE OR WASTE. IT SIMPLY MEANS, IF I AM BEARING THE COST OF MY HARMFUL BEHAVIOR (I'M PAYING FOR IT) AND OTHER PEOPLE (OWNER, OTHER COMPETITORS IN THE MARKET) HOLD ME ACCOUNTABLE, I'M LESS LIKELY TO ENGAGE IN IT.

TO REPEAT, COMPETITIVE FORCES IN THE MARKET HOLD ME ACCOUNTABLE.


3. Competition moderates individual and organizational behavior. We've all had services by crappy commercial companies and government branches (DMV, USPS, etc.). The difference is that in the long run, crappy commercial companies does not persist forever unlike government entities. With government entities, just replacing few personnels does not change organizational behavior and culture. In commercial world, inefficient companies with poor reputation do go bankrupt. With government, this moderating behavior does not happen.


4. You want to maximize labor mobility (i.e., firing and hiring of workers). In commercial world, if an individual wasted a valuable asset like a trained dog for no reason, there would be no lengthy investigation during which the guilty party would be paid. Termination would most likely be swift and w/o pay. For this reason, closed union shop is not a good idea.

BTW, THE ABOVE POINTS ARE KIND OF COMMON SENSE IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT. I'M MUCH MORE LIKELY TO TAKE CARE OF ANY ASSET IF IT'S MINE OR IF I'M RESPONSIBLE FOR IT AND BEAR THE COST OF WASTING IT.

IT DOESN'T MEAN THERE ARE NO PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS OR CORPORATE ENTITIES THAT DOES NOT WASTE A $10,000 RESOURCE, BE IT DOG OR ANY OTHER PIECE OF EQUIPMENT. However, most individuals doesn't pay $10,000 for a trained dog and starve/beat it to death because that dog represent $10,000 out of their own pocket. For corporations, wasting a $10,000 dog doesn't make economic sense.


Furthermore, if there are two firms: firm A routinely mismanages the care of $10,000 trained dog so that it keeps on dying. Firm B is in the same business but doesn't mismanage the care of $10,000 trained dogs so that it's bottom line (net profit) is higher. Shareholders are likely to sell shares of firm A and buy shares of firm B (higher bottom line).

Above example doesn't mean firm A (firm which wastes resources) doesn't exist in real world. It does. But in the long run, firms which depend on performance specific revenue cannot afford to indefinitely waste its resources like the government.
 
Last edited:
police and postal workers and any other government workers

are not any different from other people. The way they work depends on the incentives and alternatives that they have.

The long lines and ultra poor customer service at DMV and PO are there because they have monopoly power and they don't face competitive pressure like other businesses.

Agency gears and assets are not treated and taken care of like private property and commercial resources because the source of agency revenue (income) is independent of their performances.
 
Small Business Example

If a small business nets a gross revenue of $200,000/year and uses a $50,000 trained dog as part of its business equipment/services.

Case 1:
If a small business has to routinely replace the $50,000 trained dog because it starves/beat the trained dog to death, it will eventually go bankrupt and/or the owner of the firm will try to find out what's going on.

Case 2:
However, if the small business can always count of obtaining a gross revenue of $200,000/year and doesn't have to bear the cost of $50,000 trained dog, the services from the firm and care extended to the resources under its care is likely to be less than in Case 1.

Government entities are like Case 2 entities since the revenue come from taxation and does not depend on performance.

FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE APT TO MISUNDERSTAND THE ABOVE EXAMPLE, IT DOESN'T MEAN THERE ARE NO SMALL BUSINESSES WHICH WASTE RESOURCES OR GIVE POOR GOODS/SERVICES. OBVIOUSLY THEY DO EXIST. HOWEVER, IN THE LONG RUN, IN COMPETITIVE MARKET, IF A BUSINESS PERFORMED LIKE POST OFFICE OR DMV AND FACED EFFICIENT COMPETITION, IT'S NOT LIKELY TO SURVIVE.
 
rat infested VA hospital

I'm sure there are poorly managed private hospital which are rat/roach infested and worse.

However, over the long run, poorly managed private hospitals does not require a US Congressional investigation to fix it like Walter Reed Army Hospital did.

If everybody knew that hospital Roach/Rat Motel R US was poorly managed and vermin infested with most of the patients dying or getting sicker, most people would not continue to patronize it. Eventually, Roach/Rat Motel R US will go bankrupt because if nobody patronizes its services, it will not get enough revenue to survive unlike government entities.

In the case of public/government hospitals that are poorly managed like Walter Reed, that is not the case because its revenue is not driven by performance given to the people who patronize its services.

There is very little incentive for PO or DMV to give UPS/Fedex/DHL like services.

Link to USA article on problems at Walter Reed

By Douglas Stanglin said:
'Serious reforms' at Walter Reed urged


The newspaper reported on moldy walls, rats and roaches at the outpatient facility where soldiers are sent after their initial treatment at the main hospital. The series also examined the frustrations of wounded soldiers from the Iraq and Afghan wars who face a bureaucratic nightmare in seeking medical help.

"Rats and cockroaches don't burrow and infest overnight," Tierney said. "Mold and holes in ceilings don't occur in a week. And complaints of bureaucratic indifference have been reported for years."

The panel heard wrenching testimony from two wounded soldiers and the wife of a veteran who quit her job to fight the bureaucracy to get him help.

"My life was ripped apart the day my husband was injured," said Annette McLeod, whose husband, Walter, was hit in the head by a steel cargo door while working in Iraq. "And having to live through the mess that we lived through at Walter Reed has been worse than anything I've ever sacrificed in my life."

She said that when hospital officials found out her husband had had trouble with math in high school, they tried to use that to claim he had a learning disability and was mentally retarded, and therefore didn't qualify for treatment of a brain injury.

"He was considered fit enough to serve in the National Guard for 16 years. He was fit enough for deployment. But now they're saying he had his mental problem before he went to Iraq," she said.

Sgt. John Shannon, who lost his left eye and suffered traumatic injury after a firefight with insurgents in Iraq in 2004, said he was lost in the bureaucracy for weeks after he was discharged from the main hospital to the outpatient facility, known as the Mologne House.

Shannon said the staff handed him a photocopied map the grounds and sent him on his way.

"I was extremely disoriented and wandered around while looking for someone to direct me," he said. "Eventually, I found it."

After that, Shannon said, he was shunted from doctor to doctor and at one point had to start over because his records were lost.

"The system can't be trusted," he said. "And soldiers get less than they deserve from a system seemingly designed and run to cut the costs associated with fighting this war."

Tierney said he had concerns that the Army is "trying to whitewash over the problems."

"There appears to be a pattern developing here that we've seen before," he said. "First deny, then try to cover up, then designate a fall guy."

Tierney also suggested that the treatment of a large number of wounded soldiers from Iraq reflected "terrible planning" by the administration over the war.

The lawmaker said he is afraid "these problems go well beyond the walls of Walter Reed," adding that "as we send more and more troops into Iraq and Afghanistan, these problems are only going to get worse, not better."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
DMV like private businesses

do exist in the market but over the long run, they lose business.

It doesn't mean inefficient businesses like DMV doesn't exist outside of government.

If a customer has a choice between a private business which operates like DMV and a private business which operates like Wal-Mart, most people doesn't keep on patronizing DMV like private businesses indefinitely because they have the power of choice.

Creative destruction via market choices is an extremely powerful mechanism for changing the behavior of an organization.

Unfortunately, most of the time, government entities tend to live forever irrespective of how they perform.
 
However, over the long run, poorly managed private hospitals does not require a US Congressional investigation to fix it like Walter Reed Army Hospital did.

If everybody knew that hospital Roach/Rat Motel R US was poorly managed and vermin infested with most of the patients dying or getting sicker, most people would not continue to patronize it. Eventually, Roach/Rat Motel R US will go bankrupt because if nobody patronizes its services, it will not get enough revenue to survive unlike government entities.

In the case of public/government hospitals that are poorly managed like Walter Reed, that is not the case because its revenue is not driven by performance given to the people who patronize its services
Click to expand...

Characterizing Walter Reed as a rat infested roach motel is quite an exaggeration. There were problems with about a dozen rooms in an overflow housing unit that was an old motel donated to WRAMC. There was some mold, some peeling wall paper, and some stained carpeting. That's it. No rats, nobody dying from lack of care. Hardly the black hole of Calcutta.

Overall WRAMC is well run, as is the Bethesda Naval Medical Center, and provides a high standard of care. This is especially so considering that WRAMC is slated to be closed soon, and therefore isn't getting any money from Congress to upgrade any part of the facility.

People do have a greater sense of responsibility for their own property. Why you think that this means private hospitals would do a better job caring for veterans is a mystery. The news reports are full of reports on nursing homes and private hospitals that provide shoddy care while taking payments from Medicare/Medicaid and the DVA.
 
Last edited:
Capitalism doesn't work in the government (re: post#12 by TwoXForr)

TwoXForr said:
So the whole point of the first article is horray for capitalism.

Ok, horray for capitalism.
Click to expand...


Capitalism in form of free market doesn't work in the case of government, be it DMV, police, USPS, public school, etc. because funding of the government agency is independent of how it performs.

No matter how poorly the public school performs or how long an agency has maintained a history of corruption (e.g. New Orleans PD, Atlanta PD, etc.), it continues to get funding.

Furthermore, policy of closed union shop limits labor mobility and prevents free market from functioning efficiently.
 
Okay, maybe I am not with it today, (or maybe every day), but in plain and simple english, in very short format what is the point of this thread.

Is it that people take better care of things if they are personally held responsible for them finically?

:confused:

I dont disagree with anything stated above, I am just wondering what the purpose of the thread is.
 
Capitalism/free market very limited in medical care,re:post#11

cool hand luke 22:36 said:
theinvisibleheart wrote:
_______________________________
However, over the long run, poorly managed private hospitals does not require a US Congressional investigation to fix it like Walter Reed Army Hospital did.

If everybody knew that hospital Roach/Rat Motel R US was poorly managed and vermin infested with most of the patients dying or getting sicker, most people would not continue to patronize it. Eventually, Roach/Rat Motel R US will go bankrupt because if nobody patronizes its services, it will not get enough revenue to survive unlike government entities.

In the case of public/government hospitals that are poorly managed like Walter Reed, that is not the case because its revenue is not driven by performance given to the people who patronize its services
_______________________________
Characterizing Walter Reed as a rat infested roach motel is quite an exaggeration. There were problems with about a dozen rooms in an overflow housing unit that was an old motel donated to WRAMC. There was some mold, some peeling wall paper, and some stained carpeting. That's it. No rats, nobody dying from lack of care. Hardly the black hole of Calcutta.

Overall WRAMC is well run, as is the Bethesda Naval Medical Center, and provides a high standard of care. This is especially so considering that WRAMC is slated to be closed soon, and therefore isn't getting any money from Congress to upgrade any part of the facility.

People do have a greater sense of responsibility for their own property. Why you think that this means private hospitals would do a better job caring for veterans is a mystery. The news reports are full of reports on nursing homes and private hospitals that provide shoddy care while taking payments from Medicare/Medicaid and the DVA.
Click to expand...

cool hand luke 22:36,

1. free market doesn't work well if there is a high degree of intermediation simply because the party paying for the services is not the party receiving the services.

The incentive scheme in medical service industry is distorted right now since most people get their health insurances/health care through their employer chosen plan. In the case of Medicare, current contributing taxpayers are paying for the Medicare beneficiaries NOW since it's a PAYNGO system.

If an individual was paying for his own health insurance, he would pay a higher monthly premium if his risk factor was above average (don't exercise, eat diet high in fat and sweet, smoke, drink, etc.). For example, automobile insurance for a teenager is much higher than one for an experienced older drivers.

Free market doesn't work when people who incur cost are not paying for it.

As it is, group health insurance premiums for average and below-average risk members are too high in order to subsidize premiums that are too low for above-average risk members. As a result, there is very little incentive for high risk people to change their lifestyle.

2. free market doesn't work well if the process of monitoring the quality of the services and ability to switch service provider and/or publicize the poor product/services is not there.

Most people get their health insurance through work and are not willing to change their employer if they are not happy with their choices of health insurance provider.

In the case of nursing home, the problem is that quite often, people in nursing homes need a concerned and usu. related third party to monitor their care.

3. free market doesn't work well if the degree of competition is very limited.

Medical services and health care in US is relatively uncompetitive due to the fact that most medical insurance companies need to satisfy the health insurance needs of EMPLOYERS, NOT INDIVIDUALS. THERE ARE MILLIONS OF WORKERS AND INDIVIDUALS IN THIS COUNTRIES. I DON'T THINK THERE ARE EVEN MILLION COMPANIES IN US.

Imagine if your home/auto policies were like your health insurance policy...restricted to choices offered by your current employer. Imagine how uncompetitive the rates would be then!

4. free market doesn't well if the market is not very competitive (very limited number of consumers and producers).

The reason why health insurance is employer provided is because it's tax expensed. If taxation was moved to expenditure based like Fair Tax or if tax shelter was taken away or moved to individual level, it would all go away.
 
N COMPETITIVE MARKET, IF A BUSINESS PERFORMED LIKE POST OFFICE OR DMV AND FACED EFFICIENT COMPETITION, IT'S NOT LIKELY TO SURVIVE.
Click to expand...

Neither would the rural areas that can still mail a letter for .41 vis a vis, $12 for UPS, plus fuel surchages and out of area surcharges.

Unfortunately John, your analysis is faulty.

Not all services performed by Gov't are bad, especially when it entails ensuring all folks have equal access to services.

WildthemailmanAlaska TM
 
TwoXForr

In plain English, you want to structure incentives so that people who incur cost have to pay for it and people who paid for the benefit get to keep the benefits.

In the world of non-government entities outside of anomaly like health care, that is most often the case.

If Fedex or UPS behaved like US Post Office or DMV, they would go out of business since most people don't tolerate very long lines and subpar services when they have the power of choice.

Government CANNOT behave that way when they face competition. This has being proven through studies involving education vouchers and police contract services.

Public schools started behaving like private schools (teach effective literacy/math program) when they were faced with loss of funding due to loss of students.

Police started being more accountable when they were faced with loss of revenue due police services contract not being renewed.

Good YouTube video on power of free market to alter public education:
Stupid in America
 
infrastructure cost in rural area

Infrastructure cost in rural areas is higher compared to urban area because in urban area, hundreds and thousands of people share the cost of infrastructure (sewage, power line, communication line, etc.).

Providing tax payer subsidized equal access in rural areas provide distortion of incentives (FWIW, items under discussion are accepted in the field) and not only that, free market solution is superior.

In rural area, I would trust services from private carriers such as Fedex/DHL/UPS over that of USPS. If USPS's monopoly power is ever broken, I would suspect a private entity would provide a superior service to USPS's current level of service, even in rural areas.

Equal access in rural areas is never completely equal and cannot be made so. Cost of living, access to various business services and recreational opportunities, not to say, medical services, employment options, etc. are never going to be equal to that of a major metropolitan hub.

This is as it should be since economic development via free market doesn't work out if it's unprofitable. But profitable free market via technological advances and competition has done tremendous amount for rural areas in form of satellite telecomm access, rapid home door delivery via Fedex/UPS, flatter world via accessible web and cell phone communication, etc.

Here is a simple way to analyze this issue:
1. in rural area, who would you trust more? USPS, Fedex, UPS, or DHL?

2. who should take most of the credit for the rise in quality of living standard in rural areas? Government or free market? Free market has brought to rural areas affordable cell phone/telecomm, affordable waste disposal system, satellite communication, GPS, web access, efficient home delivery via Fedex/UPS/DHL/etc. In fact, in emerging market, cell phone has revolutionized economic development and subsequent living standard in ULTRA RURAL AREAS. Not government.

link to an article explaining how IT revolution is revolutionizing Africa I'm making an assumption that infrastructure in rural Africa is at least as bad or worse than rural areas in US.
 
Chance To Prove Me Wrong

CHANCE TO PROVE ME WRONG is to find a commercial business that behaves like DMV/USPS in a highly competitive market like Wal-Mart and still keep on being profitable and survive for year after year like US Postal Services.

And the private business is profitable (i.e., not subsidized by profitable divisions of related/parent firm(s)) and does not deal exclusively with government since government is subject to agent-principal problem (not act in the best interest of the principal--public).

Good luck! Best wishes!--J
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top