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

Post by djur » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 1:01 AM UTC

runako wrote: post #304

bhupy wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, we can agree that those political factions are wrong / bad. I'm just trying to have a nuanced discussion on the merits of a public postal service vs a public monopoly on paper mail. It's possible to half agree with those political factions while still wanting to keep government subsidized public mail.

I think it's fair to have the discussion, but it would make sense that any company that wanted the same privileges as the USPS would have similar obligations. Essentially, if we were to allow competition, we want all entrants to be fully self-sufficient and not dependent on USPS. For example, if they want access to consumer mailboxes in an area, they need to cover 100% of the addresses USPS covers without routing pac…

Post by missedthecue » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 1:02 AM UTC

mktk1001 wrote: post #98

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].…

There's no incentive for public companies to serve rural areas.

Post by isthispermanent » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 1:03 AM UTC

bouchard wrote: post #260

isthispermanent wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What you fail to take into account is that with a privatized postal service, non-profitable routes will stopped being serviced even if it's essential to the population.

Post by missedthecue » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 1:04 AM UTC

runako wrote: post #183

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…

> 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.

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 1:04 AM UTC

rudolph9 wrote: post #353

nerfhammer wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

according to the labor theory of value google should be rewarded less than altavista depending on which performed more labor

Although those are both search engines altvista produced drastically different results than google and the comparison of the results is generally subjective. The quality of the search result is what largely drew people to google (I was very young at the time please correct me if I’m mistaken). Regardless of which entity delivers a package the quality of the result can generally be objectively judged (cost, duration,…