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

221–230 of 575 posts

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

#221

Post by AnthonyMouse »

quickthrowman wrote: post #142
8ytecoder wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s also extremely hypothetical. And counter examples on why it won’t work is plenty abound. The concept that market and competition will result in better services and price and efficient operations is true only when then there are checks and balances in place. Market collusion, using monopoly power to squish and consolidate power and extort people happen in almost every industry. I do share their concern that govt…

Agreed, there are no truly free capitalist markets in the US, except maybe black markets. The USPS is damn good at delivering the mail, I don’t trust any private company to treat a first-class letter with the care the USPS generally does. The Post Office actually makes money, but they’re legally required to fund a new hire’s entire projected pension at the time of hiring which lets Republicans point at how the post o…

> Agreed, there are no truly free capitalist markets in the US, except maybe black markets.

Are you kidding? They're all the markets nobody talks about because they're working.

Go to the store and buy a chair. There are a hundred different kinds. Any kind you like. The barrier to entry is low. There are many competitors.

> The Post Office actually makes money

The problem with the Post Office isn't that they don't make money (though having to be bailed out by the taxpayer is unacceptable for any reason, and the pension thing was at the behest of the USPS union rather than the Republicans). The problem with it is that they have a monopoly on carrying mail which prevents customers from enjoying the benefits of competition.

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

#222

Post by bhupy »

runako wrote: post #184
bhupy wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Sure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service#U...

By law, private corporations aren't allowed to deliver anything to your mailbox, only the USPS can.

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

#223

Post by quickthrowman »

refurb wrote: post #215
quickthrowman wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, there are no truly free capitalist markets in the US, except maybe black markets. The USPS is damn good at delivering the mail, I don’t trust any private company to treat a first-class letter with the care the USPS generally does. The Post Office actually makes money, but they’re legally required to fund a new hire’s entire projected pension at the time of hiring which lets Republicans point at how the post o…

The USPS is damn good at delivering the mail That hasn’t been my experience in the least. Terrible customer service, packages lost, packages requiring signatures left on door step. And the best is when my package says “delivered” yet shows up 3 days later.

Thanks for sharing your anecdote, but you left out the rest of the sentence that provides context for the word ‘mail’ when you quoted me. I was explicitly referring to first-class letters, not packages. I believe first-class mail is better left to the USPS.

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

#224

Post by isthispermanent »

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 idea that it’s purely narcissistic is without merit. Privatization is about fostering competition to ensure better products are created.

Just because the USPS works as is does not mean it couldn’t be better. This is a classic “I like things the way they are” problem. Where the other possibilities are unknown and inexperienced and so are not given equal weight to a decision.

I don’t particularly care whether the postal service is privatized or not. But the more we keep failing at things like public schools the more I’m inclined to align with privatization. Everything can be regulated to a degree that requires basic service levels.

But you can’t fake incentive. What is the USPS incentive to do better?

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

#225

Post by linuxftw »

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…

> What's next to kill off? Libraries? Public schools?

I would vote for this. Whatever we spend on public libraries, that money could be used to bring every residence land-line high-speed internet access.

I would also defund all public schools. Charter schools seem to be the future, but the legion of bureaucrats don't want to let go of their communist indoctrination pipeline.

As a tax payer, I don't want to subsidize people sending letters or packages. Much of the back haul and distribution has already been contracted out anyway.

> It's a minimum of $11 for UPS to come pickup your package at a residential address

Yeah, that's the real cost of that service. The fact that it's free for the USPS doing it means you're using other people's money.

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

#227

Post by john-shaffer »

hardtke wrote: post #156
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 cost of sending a letter to any address in the US is the same. The cost of delivering that letter varies wildly. Think New York City vs. rural Alaska only reachable by plane. If USPS did not have monopoly, they would be severely undercut in profitable areas and would only service hard-to-reach areas where prices would spiral out of control. So if you want to keep the price of a stamp the same nationwide you need…

> So if you want to keep the price of a stamp the same nationwide you need to grant a monopoly.

The conclusion does not follow. If it is important that the price of delivery to remote Alaska be cheap, then why not just subsidize it directly?

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

#228

Post by gameswithgo »

dungdang wrote: post #189
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.)

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.

you do not pay the rest.

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

#229

Post by amznthrwaway »

bhupy wrote: post #172
hardtke wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cost of sending a letter to any address in the US is the same. The cost of delivering that letter varies wildly. Think New York City vs. rural Alaska only reachable by plane. If USPS did not have monopoly, they would be severely undercut in profitable areas and would only service hard-to-reach areas where prices would spiral out of control. So if you want to keep the price of a stamp the same nationwide you need…

> If USPS did not have monopoly, they would be severely undercut in profitable areas So in essence, residents of "profitable areas" are overpaying for mail to subsidize mail service to those in unprofitable rural areas. But then the next question is: why go through this roundabout subsidization? Why not just subsidize rural first class mail delivery by the state directly? This also ignores the fact that the USPS does…

Fedex, UPS, and DHL handle these, in part, by contracting last mile delivery in those locations to the USPS.

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

#230

Post by dungdang »

posguy wrote: post #219
dungdang wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How much does it cost to provide accurate pricing? Often the cost of metering can drastically outweigh the economic value of a simple, easy to understand/predict shipping service. This is why flat rate packaging is so popular across FedEx, UPS and USPS.

umm, no. it's illegal. a competing post service was launched, with variable rates, and the gov shut it down. by law, your rate has to be flat.
Post reply on HN