Chapter 57 Post Office and Road Corporation are unnecessary
In this information age, the Internet has spread all over the world. Is postal service still necessary?It is not too late to consider this issue even now, citizens should really think about this issue.
If you think about it calmly, you will know that the number of people using postal services in today's society has been greatly reduced.Now the post has been replaced by information transmission tools such as e-mail and fax, and the only things that still need post in the society are New Year's cards and DM (Direct Mail Advertisement). NHK's salary is notified by mail, which is to fulfill legal obligations, so it is a form of mailing postcards. In fact, there are many ways to convey information.So, is it really inseparable from the postal service now?Is it necessary to keep the postal service because there is such a business as TA-Q-BIN?
Just like this, start with a question and consider "why".We must figure out which of the current postal services can be replaced and which should be rectified and reduced, and then deal with them according to the actual situation.When faced with such a situation, it should be discussed as much as possible, and then a reasonable decision should be made (back to the practice I have advocated for a long time).
Finally, the function of the postal service as a financial institution should also be discussed.Now, you can see bank branches no matter where you go, and the Agricultural Cooperative Association and ATM network have basically covered the whole country.In the life insurance business, there are also mutual aid cooperatives derived from branches of life insurance companies.In this way, life insurance in state insurance should be abolished even if the content is very small.
"The historical mission of the postal service has come to an end." After politicians understood this, they asked the people "what should I do?" to create political debates, which seemed to justify the existence of political parties.
Similarly, there is no need for it to exist. If the road corporation is "rectified and abolished" instead of halfway "reforms", Congress will not have been unable to resolve the gasoline tax issue.
Few countries are still implementing the policy of road tolls. Why does Japan only maintain high tolls?Maybe it's because there are reasons to continue building roads!Regarding this matter, if there is no serious discussion, it will become a big problem and be left behind, and once something happens in the future, you will face the trouble of bringing up the old matter again.In short, if the problems that should be solved are left behind, the final result is that the problems will get worse.
Yes, expressway is an indispensable infrastructure for society, but if high tolls are charged on the road, then it cannot be called infrastructure.
The so-called infrastructure, to put it bluntly, is some public things, and its significance is that people can use them freely.In this sense, the current Japanese expressways have not even functioned as social infrastructure.In short, since Japan does not have that kind of super expressway (free, no signal, etc.), it still faces many problems in this regard.
Speaking of this, a question naturally arises: "Is it necessary to continue to build the expressway?" In addition, the more acute question is: "Why should poor private companies contract the country's infrastructure?" Based on this, There will be more doubts about road administration issues, as long as the people have a little awareness, there will be a big discussion on this.On this basis, it would be good to have a discussion on the road extension issue.But if this is the case, we will have to go back to the abolition of the provisional gasoline tax rate, and finally the whole problem will be postponed. It is really troublesome!
In Japan, there is no such discussion to solve the problem. They always put forward a proposal of "privatization of road corporations", "privatization of postal services", and "abolition of provisional tax rates", and then ask: "against? in favor of ?” The citizens simply answered, “Yes or No,” without thinking about it. And because there is no intermediate solution (that is, policy discussion), no matter whether they are in favor or against, their voices, looks, and Whether it is beneficial to the situation has become the final criterion for judgment, and the result is the same as without thinking.
Notes:
Notes: