Posts by goldengull3

Gregory Hall66 said:Precisely. It is a common tactic: individuals acquire a successful enterprise and then simply rename it so their existing clientele can no longer recognize it.
Or perhaps they retain nearly identical names, logos, branding, and portfolios, merely changing the title on the door. And lo and behold, suddenly they have no outstanding obligations toward the business partners of the former entity.
On paper, if necessary, pink elephants can fly through the sky too. In fact, they have every right to do so. 😁

It is an open question why such a massive public service has been allowed to stagnate. If it truly isn't profitable, why would investment Funds bother pouring money into certain sectors of it?
One only needs to look at how the postal service operates in Mexico. It is quite remarkable. They actually operate with a profit.
Is this a matter of our own "incompetence," or is it something else entirely?

Once again, we arrive at the same conclusion: paper and pink elephants.
Is it not under the oversight of that very same agency while they are busy signing contracts with Coca-Cola, burning through resources, collecting subsidies, squeezing small retailers, and delaying payments for months on end?

If a company undergoes a name change, it remains the same legal entity, so I’m not sure what you're getting at. City Express was acquired by an international fund, underwent some rebranding, and is now expanding just like any other successful corporation. They pay salaries and hire new staff. Unlike certain others, they aren't constantly whining.

Gregory Hall66 said:Precisely. It is a common tactic: individuals acquire a successful enterprise and then simply rename it so their existing clientele can no longer recognize it.
Or perhaps they retain nearly identical names, logos, branding, and portfolios, merely changing the title on the door. And lo and behold, suddenly they have no outstanding obligations toward the business partners of the former entity.
On paper, if necessary, pink elephants can fly through the sky too. In fact, they have every right to do so. 😁

It is an open question why such a massive public service has been allowed to stagnate. If it truly isn't profitable, why would investment Funds bother pouring money into certain sectors of it?
One only needs to look at how the postal service operates in Mexico. It is quite remarkable. They actually operate with a profit.
Is this a matter of our own "incompetence," or is it something else entirely?

Once again, we arrive at the same conclusion: paper and pink elephants.
Is it not under the oversight of that very same agency while they are busy signing contracts with Coca-Cola, burning through resources, collecting subsidies, squeezing small retailers, and delaying payments for months on end?

Get in touch with Zack and ask him to appoint you to the Board of Directors of USPS, then take it up with management. Fire them if they aren't performing. It's really no big deal.

In general, do you truly place that much faith in our politicians? Do you honestly believe they care about the quality of the public services they oversee? You think Kosor is the kind of person who ensures the right people are in those roles? Does Kalmeta give a second thought to the post office? When board members are appointed, expertise comes first, and political affiliation follows.

Gregory Hall66 said:Precisely. It is a common tactic: individuals acquire a successful enterprise and then simply rename it so their existing clientele can no longer recognize it.
Or perhaps they retain nearly identical names, logos, branding, and portfolios, merely changing the title on the door. And lo and behold, suddenly they have no outstanding obligations toward the business partners of the former entity.
On paper, if necessary, pink elephants can fly through the sky too. In fact, they have every right to do so. 😁

It is an open question why such a massive public service has been allowed to stagnate. If it truly isn't profitable, why would investment Funds bother pouring money into certain sectors of it?
One only needs to look at how the postal service operates in Mexico. It is quite remarkable. They actually operate with a profit.
Is this a matter of our own "incompetence," or is it something else entirely?

Once again, we arrive at the same conclusion: paper and pink elephants.
Is it not under the oversight of that very same agency while they are busy signing contracts with Coca-Cola, burning through resources, collecting subsidies, squeezing small retailers, and delaying payments for months on end?

If you're unhappy that Walmart is late on a payment, initiate a foreclosure; at least retail has some cash on hand. They receive incentives because they are agricultural producers, just like everyone else. As for cigarettes, they've already been reprimanded by the FTC. They are being watched, certainly, but Walmart simply isn't large enough to be considered a monopoly.

ruggeddriver70 said:To cut down on overhead, the Dutch Postal Service started shutting down about 250 locations across the country back in 2008. They just finished the whole process yesterday by closing their last standing office in Philadelphia—well, the Philly equivalent—and according to officials, this move was all about boosting efficiency and saving some cash. Nowadays, postal services in the Netherlands are handled through around 2,600 service points located inside retail stores and supermarkets.

Look, we all know how it goes—one group makes mistakes while the other thrives. Just look at the GDP trends if you want proof. 🙂

Gregory Hall66 said:The thread title is inaccurate.
In the States, we don't have a company called City Express; it's UPS.
There used to be a firm under that first name, but it was dissolved. One might find themselves wondering why an owner would shutter one entity only to establish another offering identical services. And more importantly, who exactly permitted such a maneuver?
The downfall of HP Inc. was no accident. Up until this point, there were countless opportunities to steer things differently if the will had been there. But it wasn't.
One immediate thought comes to mind: the automation of bill payments. If AT&T could implement such systems, surely they could have done the same.

As for Walmart and The New York Times Company, it isn't even worth discussing. They will likely follow the same pattern seen with the cigarette industry, where small retailers were squeezed out. It’s the same story for half of our agriculture and other industrial sectors. This new acquisition should be stripped from them immediately, and we should treat them exactly how Americans treated AT&T.

UPS changed its name once they were acquired by new owners—a foreign investment fund, which was heavily covered in the press. Besides, incorporating, rebranding, or liquidating companies is perfectly legal; you don't need special permission, so I'm not sure what you mean by "who allowed him"? While postal services are still largely under the monopoly of the USPS, even that is gradually eroding. The fact that the USPS hasn't modernized in years and continues to act like a state-sanctioned monopoly is a failure of their own management. I haven't seen any job postings lately looking for actual experts to overhaul their operations...

Gregory Hall66 said:The thread title is inaccurate.
In the States, we don't have a company called City Express; it's UPS.
There used to be a firm under that first name, but it was dissolved. One might find themselves wondering why an owner would shutter one entity only to establish another offering identical services. And more importantly, who exactly permitted such a maneuver?
The downfall of HP Inc. was no accident. Up until this point, there were countless opportunities to steer things differently if the will had been there. But it wasn't.
One immediate thought comes to mind: the automation of bill payments. If AT&T could implement such systems, surely they could have done the same.

As for Walmart and The New York Times Company, it isn't even worth discussing. They will likely follow the same pattern seen with the cigarette industry, where small retailers were squeezed out. It’s the same story for half of our agriculture and other industrial sectors. This new acquisition should be stripped from them immediately, and we should treat them exactly how Americans treated AT&T.

Walmart is under the oversight of the Federal Trade Commission.

silverraven7 said:The second the CEO of that outfit ended up behind bars at the biggest federal penitentiary in the country, I knew things were about to get messy. Something is definitely going down behind the scenes.
Isn't USPS basically a government entity?
If that’s the case, then why on earth does Walmart charge like half the commission just to pay utility bills?
And now we’ve got The New York Times Company throwing around claims about stuff being free, though who knows if that’s even true.
I mean, if people actually catch on to that, how are they supposed to pull in any customers? Why would anyone bother paying for something when they don't have to?

I am currently looking at the New York Times:

Standing in line just to settle your bills and utility payments is an exhausting waste of time. Honestly, just head over to a New York Times Company kiosk and get it done there instead.

Quick and easy—paying your bills at a kiosk is straightforward.
Skip the lines and stay secure. If you want to settle your bills without the headache of waiting in a crowded lobby or dealing with unnecessary risks, using a kiosk is the way to go. It’s fast, efficient, and keeps things simple.
Minimize your transaction fees by paying your bills through our most cost-effective channel.

The New York Times Company provides a detailed breakdown on their website regarding how they handle billing and invoicing for their various products. It’s all laid out there if you actually care to look.

And naturally, the IRS has handed us yet another headache to deal with. It’s a simple matter of survival now: adapt or get left behind. Times are changing, whether we like it or not.

Anthony Morales3 said:I’m really just looking to hear what everyone else thinks about this. I work at the USPS, but honestly, the whole situation feels pretty shady. It seems like FedEx is just gobbling up more and more of our market share. And that's not even talking about the actual quality of service. In my opinion, it feels like management is intentionally handing business over to FedEx just to let them dismantle the USPS and everything else in the American postal system. As employees working the counters, we're getting squeezed every single day. We're expected to fight to keep customers and push new products and services, yet at the same time, leadership is letting FedEx take away more and more of our core delivery work—things like utility bills, bank statements, and basic mail. If they actually wanted to win, maybe they should have just undercut FedEx's prices right when they started to knock them out of the market. But instead, we're just watching them take more of our business every day.

Why don't you put your hand up for CEO when the next vacancy opens? Just send an email to the shareholders suggesting they overhaul the entire board, since you and your crew would surely do a better job. Please. To claim the board is merely political appointees because the state owns the company? That's a convenient excuse to avoid facing reality, rather than spinning some conspiracy theory.

The Universal Postal Union website hosts several insightful documents detailing how state postal services have adapted to modern demonopolization. For instance:
- hybrid mail services
- closing small branches and authorizing local retailers—even bars in rural towns—to handle package intake
- subscription models for eBay sellers, allowing them to print all documentation and prepaid postage labels from home

I recall seeing a registered parcel sent from Mexico once; it featured a clean, adhesive barcode containing all the tracking data. You just slap it on the envelope, which is far more efficient than manually transcribing details for official correspondence. It comes down to basic business acumen and market adaptation. The monopolies once held by national carriers are steadily evaporating. The market will decide who survives. There isn't much deep philosophy to it. Further liberalization is expected over the next few years per European Union mandates, and frankly, massive state-run postal monopolies are becoming a relic everywhere else in the world.

Harold Martin10 said:In America, you don't really see traditional conservatives—or if you do, they're pretty much a rarity.

What we actually have are national socialists. Honestly, it's essentially the same deal as the Communist Party USA back in the old days. That group had a massive nationalist streak too, though they just rebranded it as Americanism.

A sharp observation, delivered with impressive brevity.

Take a look at the core platform of the British Conservatives here: http://www.conservatives.com/Policy.aspx

It bears almost no resemblance to what we call the "right wing" over here. On a global scale, the British Conservatives represent a standard right-wing party... yet, by our local standards, people would likely dismiss them as nothing more than liberals.😁

There is an exceptionally insightful comment over on the "America for Americans" blog regarding the recent headline "The Socialist Party has launched its campaign," from which I’d like to pull a specific excerpt:

The far-right party's initial propaganda spot serves as a stark reminder of just how much lingering communism still haunts our society and erodes the very fabric of America. We have a young engineer named Vladimir arguing that within the EU, America won't be able to develop its industry according to its own desires, but rather as dictated by the market. It begs the question: up until now, have we been able to completely ignore market demands and simply do as we please, or is this merely some specific vision held by the far-right party? They envision an America untouched by market forces, producing whatever they deem necessary, while simultaneously promising that unemployment would vanish and everyone would enjoy stable wages and pensions. When was the last time anyone actually heard such a fairy tale? The old military uniforms are gone, and the parades have ceased, but unfortunately, the underlying mindset remains—or perhaps more accurately, it has stagnated.

http://www.americaforamericans.com/...-america.html

In most Western contexts, being "right-wing" implies certain core values:

- Low taxes—ensuring individuals retain more of their earnings to manage their own lives.
- The family as the bedrock of society—not just through population policy, but fundamentally; families support one another because low taxes allow them to afford things like high-quality education for their children.
- Entrepreneurship—a right-wing thinker doesn't ask the government to "find them a job"; instead, they demand the conditions necessary to start their own business or firm.
- Law and order—demanding an efficient legal system where tax evasion is treated as a serious offense, given that it undermines the state's ability to fund police, the military, and social services.
- Social safety nets designed for those truly unable to work, rather than broad categories of citizens who simply choose not to. A true conservative will rarely pity a healthy, capable 25-year-old who is unemployed; they are more likely to point out that such a person is living off the labor of others.

And so on. You see this reflected in typical parties like the British Conservatives or the American Republicans.

Not quite. The fundamental issue with our right-wingers is that they’re essentially socialists at heart. They seem to believe the solution to everything is more government intervention, more federal oversight, and an endless expansion of state-run corporations...

The appeal has been denied.

Nancy Johnson17 said:In the interim, Charles Fox10 wiped the entire conversation clean, yet the fundamental question remains: should that post have been penalized or not?

It should have. We aren't talking about the subject matter here; we're talking about how one treats their interlocutor.

The American legal code offers some rather sage wisdom: You may not exercise your own rights if doing so merely serves to infringe upon others or create undue nuisance.

Look, if an advertisement keeps popping up like a recurring headache, you’re going to get an equal amount of irritating commentary in response. There isn't much anyone can do about it; even the moderators can't be expected to chase down every single disgruntled user. A more sensible approach would have been to limit these ads to once a week to maintain some semblance of order, but ultimately, I find myself standing behind the moderator's decision here.

Here it is. 🙂

Paul Green31 said:And I should probably correct goldengull3 on one specific point.

Corporate email addresses aren't considered private data, regardless of how they're formatted. That said, I agree that we should stick to general info here on the forum, even if an address like contact@exxonmobil.com isn't technically private.

They might not be private, but they still qualify as personal information the moment you can identify the individual behind them.

That feature is disabled by default. As you can see, access is restricted solely to registered users, much like how we handle sharing email addresses via private message.

We have no intention of changing the policy regarding the public disclosure of email addresses; this standard is consistent with most other major forums out there.

Paul Green31 said:Here we go again...

They find some supposed "illogicality" and suddenly everyone wants to start a revolution.

Look, I’m on about 50 different international forums. I’m active on 20 of them, and at least two are way bigger and more professional than this place.

On every single one of those forums, posting email addresses is strictly forbidden. On most of them, you can't even type one in if you tried.

It’s the same story everywhere you go online—chat services, web platforms, you name it. They don't let you drop an email address.

Maybe the younger crowd doesn't see the point, but site admins and system devs know exactly why they do it. And the older generation? We're used to these rules. We lived on the internet long before Facebook opened up your living rooms to the entire world—back before webcams could be linked to some interface just so someone can watch you peel a potato for lunch.

So, quit the rebellion. Email addresses are banned on forums. Period. Stop trying to make it a whole thing. If you actually want to understand why, go educate yourselves.

I have nothing further to add here. 🙂

An email address constitutes personal information. Since we lack a robust user identification system—unlike the rudimentary methods used back in the BBS era, where a sysop would at least know a user's handle for authorization purposes—we have no way of verifying that person XY is actually the individual who chose to make their email public. Therefore, email addresses are not posted. Websites, blogs, and similar platforms are inherently public. Similarly, handles for Skype, ICQ, and other services are public; they can be easily retrieved through service searches.

The only exception might be business addresses such as: "Contact that firm at reklamacije@example.com", but even then, personal addresses like ante.antic@example.com are off-limits.

If anyone finds this unacceptable, they are under no obligation to post on this Forum. Most other communities operate under the exact same rules.

brightfalcon66 said:It’s never that simple... everything is tied together in this messy web, and we’re all just sitting here waiting to see who actually comes out on top in this high-stakes chess match between the USA and China...

The whole thing really hinges on the value of the dollar... and honestly, the way Americans manipulate its value isn't some deep conspiracy, it's been common knowledge for ages. I mean, other countries mess with their currencies all the time to shave down debt or juice up exports, but if the dollar loses its status as the world's reserve currency, the US is in huge trouble because they won't be able to just print money and export their inflation to everyone else anymore—not since the US is already sliding into a recession in all but name...

China is currently sitting on a surplus with the USA... so to keep that balance, they have to keep buying up those Treasury bonds, even though most of them are basically worth nothing at this point... They've "bought" into a chunk of American debt just so they can have some leverage and a reason to call out the USA for controlling the world's trade currency. It doesn't suit them to let the USA dictate terms whenever they feel like it...

Even if it looks like China is folding, I highly doubt they’d buy those bonds without backing them up with physical assets like gold or water rights... Their economic philosophy has always been about the long game rather than quick wins, because when a Chinese person makes a deal, they aren't looking at immediate profits—they're looking at what happens ten or twenty years down the road...

Please, let's not fall back on the myth of "precious water" again. Everyone needs it daily, but most of the world has access to it, and there's simply no business case for hauling it all the way across the Pacific.

China buys US Treasuries because they need a place to park the cash from selling us their goods. Without that cycle, China's GDP growth hits a wall. Furthermore, if America stopped buying their products, we'd see factories shuttering across China, which would trigger the kind of internal social unrest they fear most.

wearytrucker22 said:Well, look at the breakdown. American funds and private citizens hold about $1,000 trillion...
China holds 1,160, Japan has 882, the UK has 272, OPEC nations have 212, Brazil has 186, offshore accounts account for 168, Taiwan has 155, Russia has 152, and even smaller players might hold around 11 billion, bringing the total toward that $4,440 trillion mark.

The US will only declare they can't pay if they literally run out of paper for the printing presses. Theoretically speaking, the US can never stop paying its debts because they borrowed in dollars—and they control the mint, not the creditors. Plus, they're sitting on massive gold reserves.

We’ve got them by the throat, haven't we? 👍

wearytrucker22 said:Well, look at the breakdown. American funds and private citizens hold about $1,000 trillion...
China holds 1,160, Japan has 882, the UK has 272, OPEC nations have 212, Brazil has 186, offshore accounts account for 168, Taiwan has 155, Russia has 152, and even smaller players might hold around 11 billion, bringing the total toward that $4,440 trillion mark.

The US will only declare they can't pay if they literally run out of paper for the printing presses. Theoretically speaking, the US can never stop paying its debts because they borrowed in dollars—and they control the mint, not the creditors. Plus, they're sitting on massive gold reserves.

Sharp thinking... Since their debt is dollar-denominated, repayment is always technically possible...

And if they actually run out of paper, they have a fallback plan ready to go:

The largest denomination of currency ever printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) was the Series 1934 Gold Certificate featuring The portrait of President Wilson. These notes were printed from December 18, 1934 through January 9, 1935 and were issued by the Treasurer of the United States to Federal Reserve Banks only against an equal amount of Gold bullion Held by The Treasury Department. The notes were used only for official transactions between Federal Reserve Banks and were not circulated among The general public

A global currency essentially already exists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Drawing_Rights

Elizabeth Harris11 said:The idea that Americans are going broke is just plain wrong—I was actually out there just two weeks ago, and you can tell they’re shaking off that recession funk. Construction is everywhere, shopping malls are absolutely packed, and honestly, you can practically smell the money in the air.
All this noise about the debt ceiling? It's nothing more than a smoke screen to distract us from the real fight, which is all about tax burdens. That's where the actual battle lines are being drawn right now.

Personally, I'm still holding out hope that we get hit by a crisis just like the one in the States... I'd love to see our wages, unemployment rates, and the cost of groceries and cars "drop" down to those American levels.

Gerald Wright10 said:Retiring "distinguished" young, healthy, and capable people isn't a feature of a social welfare state—it’s straight-up vote buying, designed specifically so they don't become the backbone of some new military junta. Meanwhile, you see real poverty everywhere you look.
That is a core, "social" component of fascism.

Since these young pensioners are usually uncompetitive in a market like this anyway, it's obvious we're living under a version of capitalism tempered by Mussolini-style fascist elements.

The government collaborates with big corporations at the expense of everyone else.

As for how—and on what basis—people get hired into government service, I assume that part is pretty clear to everyone.

And honestly, talking about foreign policy is just pointless.

Fascism is actually quite social in nature. You just had to be an Italian or adopt an Italian identity—unlike Nazism, they didn't obsess over bloodlines quite as much; if you changed your name to something Italian and learned the language, you were effectively folded into the system.

All these totalitarian regimes, in order to survive, built robust social safety nets—guaranteed jobs, steady wages, a sense of security for everyone (if you couldn't find work elsewhere, the military was always an option). But that stability was bought at someone else's expense, fueled by expansionism, seizing foreign resources, and ultimately being used to bankroll massive war machines.