Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Billionaire Behind Efforts to Kill the U.S. Postal Service [pdf]

inthepublicinterest.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 575 posts

Re: The Billionaire Behind Efforts to Kill the U.S. Postal Service [pdf]

#111

Post by nickff »

flir wrote: post #87
usaphp wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably because your tax money go to support a “broken” business model in their opinion; without asking you if you want to pay for those services. Edit: I am not saying it’s a right thing to do, I am just trying to list a possible reason why billionaires might try to fight against it, per OP question

I get a say every time I vote.

Do you think anyone is listening to what you have to say?

This comes back to voice vs. exit, which was being discussed on HN yesterday.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty

Re: The Billionaire Behind Efforts to Kill the U.S. Postal Service [pdf]

#112

Post by jeromegv »

hirundo wrote: post #103
standardUser wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...any significant value is already sent via Amazon, FedEx, DHL or UPS" And then those things are handed off to the USPS for "last mile" delivery to the millions of rural addresses that UPS and FedEx don't delivery to directly with their own vehicles. USPS serves some very critical purposes, and ensuring mail 'works' for all citizens, even those with deep rural addresses, is one of them.

I live in a rural area. The nearest USPS delivery is at a post office 11 miles away. UPS and FedEx deliver to my front door. It has been the same in two other rural areas I've lived in. New Mexico, California and Arizona. I've never lived in a place that USPS delivered to that UPS and FedEx did not.

Anecdata is not data.

Re: The Billionaire Behind Efforts to Kill the U.S. Postal Service [pdf]

#113

Post by glenda »

sparkling wrote: post #86
bmitc wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same argument of being harmful to competition could be extended to schools and libraries and . It's just mind blowing why we should care about companies more than people. So what if it's harmful to competition? What merit does that have? (These aren't questions for you. They're rhetorical.)

> It's just mind blowing why we should care about companies more than people. Theres a middle ground here, ya know? At the end of the day we need companies that turn a net-profit by offering goods and services that ultimately lead to the tax revenue to fund those libraries, post offices and schools. > So what if it's harmful to competition? Again, it's a ideological positon. In the mind of people like the Koch brothe…

We are seeing that companies with profits don’t necessarily mean that they’re paying their fair share of taxes. Organizations that are able to provide important services, even at a loss, deserve further investment.

Re: The Billionaire Behind Efforts to Kill the U.S. Postal Service [pdf]

#114

Post by quickthrowman »

sparkling wrote: post #86
bmitc wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same argument of being harmful to competition could be extended to schools and libraries and . It's just mind blowing why we should care about companies more than people. So what if it's harmful to competition? What merit does that have? (These aren't questions for you. They're rhetorical.)

> It's just mind blowing why we should care about companies more than people. Theres a middle ground here, ya know? At the end of the day we need companies that turn a net-profit by offering goods and services that ultimately lead to the tax revenue to fund those libraries, post offices and schools. > So what if it's harmful to competition? Again, it's a ideological positon. In the mind of people like the Koch brothe…

UPS, FedEx, DHL, all exist and make money.

Re: The Billionaire Behind Efforts to Kill the U.S. Postal Service [pdf]

#115

Post by kristopolous »

teslabox wrote: post #25

There are various advocates for allowing the USPS to return to the banking business. They would put the exploitative check cashing stores out of business. Ellen Brown's has written a copy pieces advocating for postal banking. What We Could Do with a Postal Savings Bank: Infrastructure that Doesn’t Cost Taxpayers a Dime - https://ellenbrown.com/2013/09/23/what-we-could-do-with-a-po... (2013) This piece concludes by su…

Ellen Brown's work in writing about banking history, public banking, municipal banking, and banking reform is really worth looking into for people who are interested in the topic.

Even libertarians and conservatives will I believe find something to agree with here as your city and state tax dollars probably go towards servicing private bank fees which could be eliminated by your city or state chartering their own bank and could be further reduced by them offering traditional "meat and potato" style loans to small main-street style businesses at reasonable rates.

The city making a few honest dollars in an open capitalist marketplace to reduce the citizen's tax burden I think would be welcome by by ideological libertarians, conservatives, liberals, socialists, all the major branches. No coercion, no obligation, just more competition, this time to the benefit of easing your tax burden.

Re: The Billionaire Behind Efforts to Kill the U.S. Postal Service [pdf]

#117

Post by alextheparrot »

donor20 wrote: post #92
uses wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your first sentence isn't even true and you can go right here and read the table that shows their revenue sources: https://about.usps.com/newsroom/national-releases/2019/1114-... To spoil it for you: in 2019, First-Class Mail and Shipping and Packages made significantly more revenue than Marketing Mail. Yes, USPS needs some new revenue streams. They do provide significant value that others cannot meet, which is daily…

The chart doesn't show the relative volumes of mail. For every priority mail package at $14.95 that same $14.95 buys HUNDREDS of pieces of junk mail. The terrible thing - you CANNOT opt out of the junk mail, at least in the past (hopefully this has changed). I have no interest in the USPS as a result. What type of business that is supposed to be providing a service FORCES its future and current customers to kill tree…

What are you talking about? There is a volume column right in the chart. It shows that for every piece of first class mail there is roughly 1.5 pieces of marketing mail

Re: The Billionaire Behind Efforts to Kill the U.S. Postal Service [pdf]

#118

Post by 0xddd »

bhupy wrote: post #74

Something I don't normally see discussed re privatization of US Postal Service is that it doesn't appear to be a novel idea. Singapore's postal service, SingPost, is a publicly traded company[1]. The UK's postal service, Royal Mail, is a publicly traded limited company[2]. Germany's postal service, Deutsche Post AG, is a publicly traded company[3]. Japan's postal service, Japan Post, is a publicly traded company[4].…

How do these companies perform compared to the USPS? Just knowing that they're privatized without any mention of customer satisfaction, cost, or other comparative metrics doesn't say much about whether it's a good idea. (I don't believe anyone's main contention is that it's "novel")

Re: The Billionaire Behind Efforts to Kill the U.S. Postal Service [pdf]

#119

Post by sparkling »

quickthrowman wrote: post #99
sparkling wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its easy to point at a greedy billionaire who wants to ruin [insert public service here] so that he can squeeze out another dollar for himself. But have you considered that they _genuinely_ belive that minimal government and more privatization leads to overall better results? It might just be that they have good intensions, that they really wish for a better outcome for all. I don't share that view, but i do think th…

> But have you considered that they _genuinely_ belive that minimal government and more privatization leads to overall better results? It might just be that they have good intensions, that they really wish for a better outcome for all. Yes, and that makes it even worse. They’re so out of touch with common people and so insulated from routine everyday life, their opinion shouldn’t count for anything. I don’t care if j…

> [...] their opinion shouldn’t count for anything.

Dangerous path there, buddy.

> [...] to argue for a position that would negatively affect millions of people [...]

Again, it seems impossible for you to even grasp that they might geniuely believe that their way of doing things might lead to better outcome for all, including people living in poverty.

> The existence of billionaires combined with Citizens United is an actual problem, the post office is not.

I guess well have to agree to disagree.

Kind regards from me (definitely not a billionaire and not even close to a millionaire)

Re: The Billionaire Behind Efforts to Kill the U.S. Postal Service [pdf]

#120

Post by unethical_ban »

bhupy wrote: post #74

Something I don't normally see discussed re privatization of US Postal Service is that it doesn't appear to be a novel idea. Singapore's postal service, SingPost, is a publicly traded company[1]. The UK's postal service, Royal Mail, is a publicly traded limited company[2]. Germany's postal service, Deutsche Post AG, is a publicly traded company[3]. Japan's postal service, Japan Post, is a publicly traded company[4].…

On the surface, the Constitution specifically cites a role for the federal government in operating a postal service.

Now, why does it have exclusivity for letter service? I don't know the history.

I'd rather look at how it can do an already pretty good job, better. I know I go to USPS when I ship anything.

Why isn't it in the banking business? Why doesn't it operate an official email / Identity Provider? Among other services that a correspondence service, a federal service with the most physical public spaces, could offer?

Post reply on HN