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

181–190 of 575 posts

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

#181

Post by [deleted] »

rayiner wrote: post #126
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.

[deleted]

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

#182

Post by bmitc »

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

It is the wrong perspective to only view public services as businesses.

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

#183

Post by runako »

unethical_ban wrote: post #120
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…

> why does it have exclusivity for letter service?

It doesn't have exclusivity for letter service. UPS, FedEx, and DHL (among others) will carry letters across the country for you.

Yes, it's going to cost ~$10 to roughly match the service speed of a USPS first-class stamp. But it's available.

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

#184

Post by runako »

bhupy wrote: post #139
unethical_ban wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The Constitution argument merely answers why things are the way that they are, they don't tell us whether the privatized model we see in the UK/Germany/Singapore/Japan is better or worse. > 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. When it comes to packages, USPS vs UPS vs FedEx have their pros/cons, but the options mean that most end user's needs a…

> The question is why USPS enjoys a state sanctioned monopoly on paper mail specifically.

I'm curious -- can you link to more detail about this? I've never had trouble sending paper mail through UPS or FedEx. What does the monopoly cover, specifically?

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

#185

Post by coliveira »

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…

Of course they can have whatever opinion they want. But what demonstrate the big danger of billionaires is that they have the resources to fund any number of think tanks, lobbyists, ONGs, TV shows, newspapers, and what not to sway legislation to their particular, minority view.

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

#186

Post by mthoms »

DevKoala wrote: post #43
toiletfuneral wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why should basic government services be profitable?

Like the parent mentioned, the service is exploited by companies to do their cheap spam advertising. Is it okay for taxes to cover this?

Do you have a citation for the assertion that this portion of their business is not profitable and being "exploited"?

I'm genuinely curious.

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

#187

Post by donor20 »

egypturnash wrote: post #135
donor20 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You can opt out of junk mail. It is an annoying process that involves finding multiple places to opt out, and takes a few months to take effect because all this shit has a lengthy production pipeline. But it is doable. I get a lot less junk mail than I used to, and if I was willing to put a little more effort in I’d get even less - I had it pretty close to zero in my old place.

This is if you got through the list brokers or other senders. EDDM doesn't allow for any type of block period. That said, it still costs sender money.

But if are in a 50 unit building and you see those big stacks of advertising being plonked into the mailroom, that's what those are.

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

#188

Post by nickff »

kristopolous wrote: post #115
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 ban…

Most libertarians (including myself) think it's a bad idea to have governments 'compete' with private companies for a variety of reasons, including:

- It's unlikely that the government will regulate itself and its competitors fairly, and it's generally unlikely that the government will hold itself to account (as it often does for private entities).

- The government is likely to set up barriers to entry, to prevent competition. This is the case for the postal service, which has a monopoly on first-class mail.

- The government is likely to subsidize its 'option', either directly or indirectly, such as by having the government 'sole-source' services from its 'competitor'.

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

#189

Post by dungdang »

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 do care about people. myself included. why do i, paying insane urban rent, subsidize a farmer who already gets my tax dollars to grow too much corn? it costs probably $10 to deliver a letter to his farm. he pays ¢42. i pay the rest. his letter should be $10. mine should be a penny. you know - the actual cost of delivery, paid by the actual person.

fuck the post office.

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

#190

Post by donor20 »

apocalyptic0n3 wrote: post #128
donor20 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Fair point - but the perception is that marketing is a majority of the mail even if it's not a majority of the revenue. And since you can't get out of EDDM mailings you are stuck with these. It wouldn't be that hard to red dot or something your box so the carrier knew you didn't want the junk mail.
Post reply on HN