Live data from Hacker News

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

inthepublicinterest.org

511–520 of 575 posts

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

#511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm not an expert on the labor theory of value, but I do know that's not a valid interpretation of it. For one thing, I believe it applies only at a macro, or sectoral, level.

The point is, the labor theory of value has been rejected by economists for a really long time now, because it's a totally incoherent way of valuing things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_the_labour_theor...

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

#512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hmm this may be a good point. is it really capturing value or is it creating value? people made links because they wanted to make links anyway. the value of links to a search engine doesn't exist without a search engine, and the existing value of links isn't diminished by that (except for the specific case of a manually curated link directory, e.g. the original yahoo).

The links were the prerequisite of Google/page rank, so Google only realizes that value once they had been created. They added value to that labor by making visible and accessible a dimension of this underlying network to others, but then channeled that mostly to themselves and ultimately disrupted, perhaps even destroyed (depending on your perspective), the signaling they observed. They were not alone in this, but i…

This misses the point of the example, though. The point is that not all labor has the same value. Albert Einstein's thoughts produced a lot more social utility than mine do, for instance.

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

#513
post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. The problem with the USPS is that it's both been exposed to "market competition" and also has legal obligations that its competitors do not have. The cost of those legal obligations now far outstrips the value of their statutory monopolies.

Which legal obligations that it's competitors don't have? If you're talking about the requirement to pre-fund their pension fund, my understanding is that UPS and FedEx (and all private corporations) were already required to do so. I think it's more accurate to say that PAEA removed an artificial advantage that USPS had. OTOH, FedEx responded to MAP-21 and similar pension funding laws by getting rid of their pension…

> If you're talking about the requirement to pre-fund their pension fund, my understanding is that UPS and FedEx (and all private corporations) were already required to do so.

It seems that most observers agree that this is not the case, so it is unclear how you came to the exact opposite understanding. E.g. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-04-04/congre... mentions

> The law requires the Postal Service, which receives no taxpayer subsidies, to prefund its retirees' health benefits up to the year 2056. This is a $5 billion per year cost; it is a requirement that no other entity, private or public, has to make.

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

#514
post #434
post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it appears that they're arguing if you ignore pension cost the USPS is profitable. Its like saying if you ignore what they spend on gas then they'd be profitable. Obviously you can't just ignore costs when calculating profit. You're skirting the primary issue. This "cost" is manufactured and is a burden that no other entity (private or governmental) even comes close to having to bear. It's all in the submitted arti…

> This "cost" is manufactured It's not manufactured. They are making promises that have a net present value of X dollars. That's a real cost they are incurring and it has to go on their profit/loss statement. >Up until 2006, the USPS funded those obligations on a pay-as-you-go-basis, No company is allowed to do that. All companies are required to fully fund their pensions: >The funding requirement under PPA is simply…

I am at this point not convinced that you are actually trying to understand, but if you read the text you linked, it says:

> If a plan is fully funded, the minimum required contribution is the cost of benefits earned during the year.

The USPS however, needs to fund not only the current year’s expenses, but also all expenses for the 50 following years. No one else needs to do this.

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

#515
Getting rid of the USPS has tremendous national security implications. It's a "network" that doesn't rely on the internet.

Imagine we had to deliver a vaccine to everyone within a week. The USPS knows everyone's address and where people live. They would be the go to institution to do this.

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

#516
post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s comically simplistic. If you actually drill down into every tangible thing that’s wrong with America, you’ll find that root causes are actually pretty complicated.

I'll grant that a speedy misreading of what I wrote could lead someone to a conclusion that was simplistic or even comic. It's been my experience tho that folks on HN tend to carefully consider context and intent - and are less likely to arrive at misguided conclusions. That is a fine thing and I am grateful for it.

It’s just as simplistic as the following statement:

Consider any tangible thing that's wrong with America - government mismanagement and regulation are likely to be a part of that equation.

This is a state of affairs we need to consider rolling back, not expanding.

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

#517
post #54

Skimmed this long PDF after getting clickbaited by the headline and it begins with the premise that without the USPS, we would be left only with email >The federal agency plays a crucial role in U.S. supply chains, commerce, and basic communication—which email simply cannot replace—by processing and delivering nearly 500 million pieces of mail on an average day. But I did have a number of questions like, Wouldn't it…

> Why is this on Hacker News?

It's an interesting topic. It's generated a few 100 comments already proving that. If HN were just about the latest Rust release and some new startup CEO's deep thoughts, I probably wouldn't come here 5x a day

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

#518
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.)

“Caring about companies more than people” is empty rhetoric. People care about companies and competition because companies create the things people want and need. Indeed, lots of people believe that schools, for example, should be subject to competition. Places like Sweden have school competition via vouchers.

> Places like Sweden have school competition via vouchers

This system is also unique in the world and the results since its institution have been woeful. Massive increase in segregation, inflation in grades, bankruptcies where the pupils suddenly doesn't have a school. All because they need to market themselves as "good schools" to make the largest amount of profit.

For the same reasons they tend to establish themselves in places with socioeconomically strong families, since those kids needs less work, and are thus more profitable.

There's also a queue system in-place where the parents must enqueue their child into these "good" schools basically directly after birth. These kind of hidden signals is used to further stratify the pupils through both segregation and class. A government issued report suggested that there should be a draw instead of a queue to prevent these outcomes. This is of course vehemently opposed by the "free-school industry" (yes, ofc they added the "free" prefix).

This system is not something that any country should adopt, and luckily, we're so far unique about it (heard something about Chile (Chicago Boys remember?) but not sure that's still the case). There's a large majority to change this system, but unfortunately the current situation in parliament doesn't allow it.

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

#519
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.

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.

Once again, the privatization to form "Postnord" has been an utter failure and is a source of constant ridicule here in Sweden due to its newfound unreliability.

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

#520

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…

> 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?

Can you clarify how this would work?

If I reside in Florida/Hawaii and send mail to Alaska I am presuming that it would get re-routed through intermediate stops. Also people move and mail traffic ebbs and flows through the seasons. So I don't understand how this subsidies would work unless we look at the network as a whole and budget accordingly.

Post reply on HN