The Billionaire Behind Efforts to Kill the U.S. Postal Service [pdf] • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by imgabe » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 11:49 PM UTC

bmitc wrote: post #44

darawk wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's ideological. They believe that the government should not be in the postal business. They probably believe that it's harmful to competition in various ways, and they are probably right in certain narrow contexts.

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.)

I think the belief is that a competitive business would be incentivized to offer a better service than a government monopoly.

This doesn't work out though in rural areas where it's unprofitable for a business to open a branch or provide service. This would be the case for postal service in large parts of the country just like it's the case for Internet providers.

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

#122

Post by harimau777 » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 11:50 PM UTC

sparkling wrote: post #67

bmitc wrote: post #20

The amount of narcissism these people (the Koch's, for example) have is just astounding. If you're a billionaire, what could possibly be a reasonable explanation for why you even care about the post office? Why are these people so hell bent on hurting people to feed their own narcissism? The USPS could be improved but struggles primarily due to active efforts to kill it off. But it's a wonderful idea of a service tha…

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…

This is tough because I don't want to straw man them, but I'm not sure I've ever heard a hardcore libertarian really argue that their policies would be better for the whole of society.

Generally it seems like they think that minimal government leads to better results in a social Darwinism or "get rid of the parasites" sense.

I've also never really seen them seriously recon with the question of what you do with people who cannot compete, and at some point I feel like that crosses the line into intellectual negligence.

Again, I don't want to try to demonize the other side and I really wish I could think of a good example, but I really cannot.

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

#123

Post by jorblumesea » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 11:50 PM UTC

usaphp wrote: post #70

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.)

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

More likely, it's because billionaires see $$$ to be made in divesting the government of a cheap public service. It's the same idea behind the privatization of everything the government does. Cheap, clean water? Why is the government giving this out for pennies when we could be making a killing?

It's greed, simple as that. These people are corporatists that believe if there's money to be made, they should be allowed to regardless of the ethical consequences.

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

#124

Post by bmitc » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 11:50 PM UTC

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…

I agree with you in that wealthy people are given too much power in the U.S. In the U.S., becoming wealthy has somehow become a fast pass to do basically whatever you want and inflict change that could affect millions of people negatively or be self-beneficial (to the wealthy person) or both.

Allowing individuals to accumulate so much wealth is just not good for the common people, and the fact that our government is so inept at managing money isn't a good enough reason to allow individuals to reach such power and wealth. If they are allowed to accumulate such wealth, there should be much stronger laws preventing their influence in government policies.

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

#125

Post by bhupy » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 11:51 PM UTC

0xddd wrote: post #118

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")

I think it's certainly worth comparing which model produces more superior outcomes. We ought to compare the per capita expenditure, and the median delivery time.

But also regardless of which is better, why is it all-or-nothing? Why can't UPS/Amazon/FedEx/DHL ALSO co-exist with the USPS? Today, they are prohibited from delivering any first class mail to a mailbox, by law.

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

#126

Post by rayiner » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 11:51 PM UTC

bmitc wrote: post #20

The amount of narcissism these people (the Koch's, for example) have is just astounding. If you're a billionaire, what could possibly be a reasonable explanation for why you even care about the post office? Why are these people so hell bent on hurting people to feed their own narcissism? The USPS could be improved but struggles primarily due to active efforts to kill it off. But it's a wonderful idea of a service tha…

> The amount of narcissism these people (the Koch's, for example) have is just astounding. If you're a billionaire, what could possibly be a reasonable explanation for why you even care about the post office? Why are these people so hell bent on hurting people to feed their own narcissism?

Because they believe it’s bad for the public welfare. As you acknowledge, they have no other reason to care.

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

#127

Post by sparkling » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 11:51 PM UTC

jeromegv wrote: post #104

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…

In theory yes, they should be allowed for their opinion. However their hold on society is much bigger than the 1 vote they are allowed. With their billions, they can contribute to elect and influence politicians. So while the view to destroy the USPS is well funded, what about the small business or lower income people that rely on USPS as an affordable and needed service (in the middle of a pandemic no less)? Who can…

100% with you on limited political contributions and other forms of kickbacks

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

#128

Post by apocalyptic0n3 » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 11:51 PM UTC

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…

> 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.

Volume has nothing to do with revenue, which is precisely what the original poster pointed to and was being refuted:

> The USPS's primary revenue source is as a Spam delivery service.

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

#129

Post by codemac » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 11:52 PM UTC

sparkling wrote: post #119

quickthrowman wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 a…

A billionaire's opinion should not count more than any other random person's opinion.

Genuinely believing something is good on the part of a billionaire has no bearing on whether or not their vote should count once per human or once per dollar.

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

#130

Post by quickthrowman » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 11:52 PM UTC

sparkling wrote: post #119

quickthrowman wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 a…

Why should we listen to someone who probably doesn’t ever open their own mail or pay a bill or send a package regarding the postal service? They don’t have to deal with the change they’re advocating for, they have the resources to actually change things.

> Dangerous path there, buddy.

Their opinion should count as much as any regular person. I’m not arguing for silencing anyone, merely limiting their outsized influence. I should’ve clarified this in my original post.

How would privatizing the mail help the poor? I’m curious.