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]

#161

Post by bhupy » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 12:00 AM UTC

ip26 wrote: post #149

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].…

The common argument is if USPS did not have that monopoly, then other providers would enter only the profitable regions. The result would be the USPS would not have the revenue to serve the unprofitable regions, and would either be forced to end service in the unprofitable regions or simply collapse.

Right, and that exposes the reality that the USPS is at best, a state run subsidization scheme for rural mail delivery. But if that's the case, why subsidize it indirectly through selectively inflated prices, which regressively hurt poor people in urban markets)?

Sounds like if the problem is that rural mail is socially important, we ought to subsidize it directly.

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

#162

Post by rayiner » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 12:00 AM UTC

darawk wrote: post #26

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…

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.

It’s not just “they.” Postal privatization is common, and subsidies are closely watched: https://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/sectors/1920548.pdf. The Danish post, for example, is a private company owned by a Swedish company, and subsidies are closely tracked.

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

#163

Post by rblatz » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 12:00 AM 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

The USPS is self supporting from postage. Your taxes aren't funding a "broken" business model. But they are funding a bunch of people trying to interfere with, and force the USPS out of business.

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

#164

Post by cgh » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 12:01 AM 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…

It's also likely because they are trying to suppress mail-in ballots. These are overwhelmingly used by people who can't get to a polling station because eg it is too far away and they don't own a car - in other words, they are poor.

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

#165

Post by Avicebron » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 12:01 AM UTC

treis wrote: post #49

qntty wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, privatized delivery poses the same problem as private control of the internet in the absence of net neutrality. If there was no USPS to compete with, what's the stop Amazon and other major retailers from coming to agreements with delivery companies to charge higher fees for "non-partner" deliveries.

The Sherman anti-trust act

Which really doesn't seem to have helped the market capture by massive companies...with enough money behind it, it's unlikely the new private post company would be regulated.

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

#166

Post by rblatz » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 12:01 AM UTC

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…

Taxes don't fund the USPS, postage does.

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

#167

Post by djur » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 12:01 AM UTC

mindcrime wrote: post #101

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…

I don't share that view, but i do think that there is a fraction of hardcore liberterians that truly believe we'd be better of without many of the government-founded services such as libraries, schools etc. Just to be clear, we don't have any problem with schools or libraries. We just think the model of having governments collect taxes and then pay for those things is broken. In consequentialist terms, it's broken be…

In deontological terms, taxation is not theft, because theft is the unlawful taking of property, and taxation is lawful. To argue otherwise requires a fundamental rejection of the legitimacy of the state, and most people are not going to accept that premise, which is why libertarian rhetoric in practice tends to rely on casuistic arguments about waste-fraud-and-abuse, red tape, and so on.

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

#168

Post by mthoms » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 12:01 AM UTC

treis wrote: post #84

acdha wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The major problem the USPS has is the 2006 law requiring them to prefund employee pensions at the time of retirement, which no other business has to do. Changing that to normal accounting alone would substantially transform their finances. A secondary problem is that Congress will interfere with decisions to reduce service in unprofitable areas but not officially subsidize it. This makes the post office appear to be…

>The major problem the USPS has is the 2006 law requiring them to prefund employee pensions at the time of retirement, which no other business has to do. This is a common talking point, but is factually incorrect. (1) The USPS hasn't made any of those payments since 2013. Their current financial woes aren't caused by the requirement since their not making the payments. (2) Pensions are required to be fully funded. In…

Citation? The linked article says:

>The agency would be in a much stronger financial position had Congress not passed the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) in 2006, which “requires the Postal Service, which receives no taxpayer subsidies, to prefund its retirees’ health benefits up to the year 2056,” on a 50-year basis.

> According to the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) in 2019: “If the costs of this retiree health care mandate were removed from the USPS financial statements, the Post Office would have reported operating profits in each of the last six years.”

>“[N]o other entity, private or public, has to make” such provision for future health benefits of current and future retirees so far in advance. Private companies also can change their health benefits without an act of Congress, unlike the Postal Service. “Current reserves of $47.5 billion could be used to pay expected pay-as-you-go retiree health care costs 10-15 years into the future,” IPS noted.

>The 2006 law also bars the Postal Service from obtaining other revenue by providing “nonpostal services,” such as offering banking services or opening cafes at post offices. And it also limits the ability of the Postal Service to raise rates beyond the rate of inflation.

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

#169

Post by zdragnar » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 12:01 AM 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.)

Your rhetorical questions are founded on a faulty (and incredibly uncharitable) assumption: that "we should care about putting companies over people."

It isn't- for most, it is about preventing the waste that tends to happen when organizations (be they corporations or government bureaucracies) become complacent and uncompetitive.

Whether corporate raiders or rubber rooms for bad union members, any system can get taken advantage of. That doesn't mean that you should assume the worst from the people you disagree with.

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

#170

Post by coliveira » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 12:01 AM UTC

jorblumesea wrote: post #123

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

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…

Exactly, capitalists think in terms of opening new markets so why let people have for free something from which they can make a fortune? This way of thinking is like a cancer that grows on society.