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]

#261

Post by cryptoz » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 12:24 AM UTC

andrewlgood wrote: post #192

llsf wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not a novel idea to privatize the postal service. It can be lucrative business, especially if focused on the right areas. The legacy system is based on the fact that it is public service, equally offered to all citizens, regardless of their gender, race, religion and location. So, it is not a business. A business would focus on the most profitable aspect of the postal service. It would likely not serve some are…

The USPS has already lost a fair amount of business to email and overnight package services. It is interesting that the reason we cannot “opt out” of junk mail is because it would cause financial harm to the USPS. As for banking and check cashing businesses, why do we think it is appropriate for the government to actively compete in those businesses? What if they decide to set up a technology consulting business? A s…

What's wrong with a government-run grocery store? I can quickly think of a hundred reasons why I would support such an idea. And no reasons yet why I wouldn't support it. But you make it sound like a government-run grocery store is massively crossing a line for you. So I am curious about that.

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

#262

Post by lostlogin » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 12:24 AM UTC

isthispermanent wrote: post #224

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 p…

How do you apply this logic to US healthcare? Regulation doesn’t seem to have helped with costs, accessibility and population health.

Regulation doesn’t seem to have helped in terms of bang for buck.

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

#263

Post by sudosysgen » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 12:24 AM UTC

exabrial wrote: post #39

toiletfuneral wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why should basic government services be profitable?

why should basic government services severely damage the environment?

Then propose a plan for how to make USPS green while maintaining efficiency, and we can have a vote on it.

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

#264

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 12:24 AM UTC

arnonejoe wrote: post #252

cgh wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Whats wrong with sending a ballot via UPS?

[deleted]

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

#265

Post by salawat » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 12:24 AM 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…

>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.

Genuine belief does not excuse reality blindness or intellectual stop points.

I genuinely believe the world would have so many fewer problems if people would just stop being dicks.

Alas, I am neither justified nor reasonable to present that as an answer to every problem. I have to stop, consider the details of what is there, the history of the edifice, the use case it fulfills, the fact the existence of the service is guaranteed by the Constitution, and that if you want it changed, it's going to take a Constitutional Convention, plus a 2/3's ratification amongst the States. If I want what I consider a problematic piece of the infrastructure of the United States of America to go away, I must come to terms with reality.

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

I'd qualify that with "the existence of billionaires [where large chunks of the capital flowing through them is not cycling back through the country via taxes] is a large threat to the country". Citizen's United alone is a bloody travesty against the very fabric of civic interaction, as a legal fiction by definition skews the equation away from all votes being equal; particularly when media exposure and marketing becomes more important in the act of campaigning than actually knowing what it is your Constituent's actually want, and the fact it is only management who gets to direct the support or capital of the legal fiction with no regard to wishes of the workers (in the case of a corporation directly) or well, workers again, in that it is infrequently seen that wages have gone up in anywhere near the proportion of income/revenue of corporate entities has. Therefore, it is rather obvious that value is likely being tied up in corporate or capital-gains tax write-offs in the forms of donations to possibly independent, yet aligned PAC's.

>I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I realize that's the polite response, but for whatever reason, it has just always rung as condescending to me. I prefer a heartfelt "I disagree", or "I beg to differ;" but to each their own. Would still debate with over a beer or two.

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

#266

Post by Elof » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 12:25 AM UTC

arnonejoe wrote: post #252

cgh wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Whats wrong with sending a ballot via UPS?

cost and ease

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

#267

Post by isthispermanent » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 12:25 AM UTC

_emacsomancer_ wrote: post #57

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 existence of billionaires is far more harmful to competition than government is.

I would disagree. Billionaires and mega companies are able to pioneer and validate ideas that smaller companies may not be able to due to financial or operational restraints.

But once an idea is validated smaller competitors come in and start picking off verticals. Shopify and it’s 100,000+ stores are around in large part due to Amazon not only validating and producing best practices for the e-commerce model but also in building the foundational infrastructure (AWS) for smaller companies to leverage.

There are major benefits to having mega companies and billionaires around, and particularly having them in your country. Albeit, I agree, we do need to come up with a better tax strategy for the ultra wealthy.

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

#268

Post by seizethecheese » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 12:25 AM UTC

We are building a just-in-time distribution network on top of USPS (Bottomless - YC W19) We're able to deal with their slowness because we predict demand in advance using data from a smart scale.

It's quite astonishing how unreliable USPS is. We frequently see packages get routed to a totally incorrect part of the country, derailing shipments for several days.

Also, it seems like even USPS doesn't know when their packages will arrive. The estimates they give are worse at predicting arrival time than just inputing distance into a simple regression!

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

#269

Post by tptacek » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 12:25 AM UTC

woodruffw wrote: post #141

rayiner wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Since the OP failed to mention the other reasons: ideological purity and profit motive come to mind. Edit: I failed to mention that the libertarian groups, at least in the US, are also a consistent reservoir and breeding ground for reactionaries. Another plausible explanation is that a lot of (ultra-wealthy) people have even worse politics, but launder their views through "free minds, free markets."

How is privatizing the Post Office "reactionary"? The origins of the USPS are in a pre-Revolutionary grant from the British Crown. It's always been a public service.

And what is "worse politics" but a begging of the question? Ok, privatizing the Post Office is worse than keeping it public; I agree. The question is why they believe that.

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

#270

Post by deadcommies » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 12:25 AM UTC

pryce wrote: post #151

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.

Ideological is close; If you are a billionaire, you didn't perform a billion dollars worth of labor; you got that way being the recipient of profits of significant fractions of entire industries based predominantly on other people's labor. If you make money this way, untapped resources don't necessarily look like untapped oil fields, instead they might look like entire industries that (with friendly legislators) can…

In your view, is there a middle ground between labor theory and corrupt capitalism?