Senate Bill S.786 could kill NWS internet weather products

In the same vein, it has no stimulus to provide a better product. That's
what the profit motive creates, "MOTIVE".

What's the motive to provide good public libraries?

Jose

--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"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.

On Wed, 11 May 2005 02:27:45 GMT, George Patterson
wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote:
Matt Barrow wrote:

No, it doesn't. The point made, though, is that private industry
"could do
what the NWS does", and that's plain BS.

True. A private industry would do what the NWS does only better and
less expensively.

Unlikely. That's a situation in which competition wouldn't really be feasible.
You have only to look at the way AT&T was handling their monopoly and charging
structure in the '70s to see that the charges would almost certainly be
considerably higher than what we pay in taxes to support NWS today.


Let's see:

Low bidder get the contract. So they start out cheap, and then have
to figure in a profit margin. Something is going to either get cut or
added, most likely both. Less service at a higher cost.

This would be like an airline letting out their maintenance to a low
bidder.

There are few things where a government/tax supported service works
better, but weather and traffic control are two.

If ATC were supported only by user fees the cost of flying would be
far higher than today.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

"Roger" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 May 2005 02:27:45 GMT, George Patterson
wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote:
Matt Barrow wrote:

No, it doesn't. The point made, though, is that private industry
"could do
what the NWS does", and that's plain BS.

True. A private industry would do what the NWS does only better and
less expensively.

Unlikely. That's a situation in which competition wouldn't really be
feasible.
You have only to look at the way AT&T was handling their monopoly and
charging
structure in the '70s to see that the charges would almost certainly be
considerably higher than what we pay in taxes to support NWS today.


Let's see:

Low bidder get the contract. So they start out cheap, and then have
to figure in a profit margin. Something is going to either get cut or
added, most likely both. Less service at a higher cost.

You assume it would be another monopoly. Flat out wrong in the same way
other media is a monopoly.


This would be like an airline letting out their maintenance to a low
bidder.

There are few things where a government/tax supported service works
better, but weather and traffic control are two.

Assumptive at best, and wrong by history.

If ATC were supported only by user fees the cost of flying would be
far higher than today.

Directly, yes. Overall, no.

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

There are few things where a government/tax supported service works
better, but weather and traffic control are two.


Military Defense is a good example of something best done by government.
Even if you do pay more.

Weather is a defense issue for one thing. Military types need good weather
forecasts even more than pilots. They need them for places outside the
country, too.

Could someone who thinks that a free market would work better here, please
DESCRIBE how that market would work? Please include infrastructure costs and
who is paying for them since the government will not be paying for them
anymore, otherwise its not a free market!!! What this bill describes is a
free ride, not a free market. If we have a free ride, let's all share it.

Governments (and philanthopists) are necessary for big expensive long term
projects with questionable profitability. It is very possible that the
market demand for good weather data would not support a profitable weather
service. If you cannot determine that the demand is there, then simply
saying free markets are better will not work.

If all this was so simple, healthcare would not be a big issue. The bottom
line is that on average, people won't invest in this sort of thing until
it's too late. How many people would actually budget for the real pice of
the healthcare they desire? About 10% would be my guess.

You know, a guy in trainer can fly with or without the weather forecast and
not care. He may not leave far from the field though. However, the FAA says
he HAS to have weather before going up. Are you going to change these rules
when everyone has to pay?


If ATC were supported only by user fees the cost of flying would be
far higher than today.


Only if the system was as it is now. User fees, depending upon the
structure, WILL change who flies what and where and how often.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow wrote:

No, it doesn't. The point made, though, is that private industry "could
do
what the NWS does", and that's plain BS.

Whoops...that should be "couldn't do".

True. A private industry would do what the NWS does only better and
less expensively. I would certainly hope it wouldn't simply "do what
the NWS does" as that would be a real waste.

The NWS doesn't do anything by itself; it has no manufacturing capacity.
It
merely derives income from the thugs at the IRS.

In the same vein, it has no stimulus to provide a better product. That's
what the profit motive creates, "MOTIVE".

The NWS/NOAA will get it pound of flesh regardless of the quality of its
product. AAMOF, if they fall behind, they can just demand/plead the need
for
MORE money and resources...sorta like the school systems. (**** up and
move
up).



You are just assuming there is actually enough profit here to motivate
someone to invest like the government has?

All this tax talk is good.

I kinda like www.fairtax.org myself.

I am all about free markets and eliminating government as much as possible.
However, the bill in question does not eliminate NWS. IF they want to put
out a long term plan and show how this will help, and when we will see a
better, more efficient, and free market in weather; THEN, I will support it.

From here though, it sounds like the arguments are just a bunch of "free
markets are always better" talk. We don't live in a free market utopia, so
this is not always true.

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