What does privatization of the US Postal Service mean?
phenomenalworld.org
What does privatization of the US Postal Service mean?
1–10 of 156 posts
Re: What does privatization of the US Postal Service mean?
#2That the US has failed as a country?
Re: What does privatization of the US Postal Service mean?
#3A Soviet joke goes like this: "Daddy, daddy, they've said on the radio that vodka price goes up next month! Does it mean that you won't drink as much anymore?" — "No, son, it means that you won't eat as much no more".
So. The new private owner(s) will try to increase their profit. Increasing the efficiency of the processes already in place while providing the same services with the same coverage/quality/etc. at the same prices is indeed one way to increase the profit... but it's one of the hardest ways. Hiking up the prices and discontinuing services with smallest margins is a much simpler, easier, and even more effort-efficient way so this is what's going to happen first.
Re: What does privatization of the US Postal Service mean?
#4I read the whole article, and it had a lot of informed discussion within it, but ultimately that discussion felt a little pointless.
The crisis is manufactured, the debate of “what to do” or “what would happen if privatization happens?” does not need to be a discussion.
The USPS is a no-brainer public service and the only reason there is any question of its value is due to the severely broken, dysfunctional, corrupt Congress.
If it’s unprofitable, it’s barely unprofitable, especially in the scope of government services.
How many days of the Iran war would fully fund the USPS’ operating budget deficit for a year?
I’m not even sure that corporate lobbyists will be happy with privatization. For example, both FedEx and UPS rely on USPS for last mile delivery of some types of packages. What about all the companies that send me junk mail 6 days a week? Are they going to be happy when one of their most effective forms of marketing doubles in price or shrinks down to 3 day a week service?
Re: What does privatization of the US Postal Service mean?
#5It's a casualty of political corruption, both moral in terms of Party first politics and run-of-the-mill crony capitalism. That's what it means.
The consequences are far reaching for many existing industries. It may never be unraveled once initiated. It will give rise to more concentrated wealth and power. This is by design.
Re: What does privatization of the US Postal Service mean?
#6The postal service was in the constitution from the beginning - Washington signed it. But the wording is a bit weird - obviously there's supposed to be a postal service but now with how bad tings have become, who knows.
Re: What does privatization of the US Postal Service mean?
#7I read the whole article, and it had a lot of informed discussion within it, but ultimately that discussion felt a little pointless. The crisis is manufactured, the debate of “what to do” or “what would happen if privatization happens?” does not need to be a discussion. The USPS is a no-brainer public service and the only reason there is any question of its value is due to the severely broken, dysfunctional, corrupt…
> The USPS is a no-brainer public service and the only reason there is any question of its value is due to the severely broken, dysfunctional, corrupt Congress.
Huh? Even Germany managed to privatise their snail mail, and approximately no one would want to renationalise it.
What makes USPS a 'no-brainer public service'? What's the big benefit of having government snail mail?
Mail delivery service is not a public good. It's both excludable and rivalrous. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
> What about all the companies that send me junk mail 6 days a week?
Effectively calling USPS the 'federal agency of paper spam delivery' doesn't exactly sound like a ringing endorsement?
Re: What does privatization of the US Postal Service mean?
#8The postal service was in the constitution from the beginning - Washington signed it. But the wording is a bit weird - obviously there's supposed to be a postal service but now with how bad tings have become, who knows.
Huh, where's the postal service in the constitution?
As far as I can tell your constitution allows the federal level to regulate postal services, but it does not require the establishment of government snail mail.
Re: What does privatization of the US Postal Service mean?
#9[dead]
Re: What does privatization of the US Postal Service mean?
#10I read the whole article, and it had a lot of informed discussion within it, but ultimately that discussion felt a little pointless. The crisis is manufactured, the debate of “what to do” or “what would happen if privatization happens?” does not need to be a discussion. The USPS is a no-brainer public service and the only reason there is any question of its value is due to the severely broken, dysfunctional, corrupt…
> The USPS is a no-brainer public service and the only reason there is any question of its value is due to the severely broken, dysfunctional, corrupt Congress. Huh? Even Germany managed to privatise their snail mail, and approximately no one would want to renationalise it. What makes USPS a 'no-brainer public service'? What's the big benefit of having government snail mail? Mail delivery service is not a public good…
If the USPS were fully privatized without strict government subsidies or mandates, rural and remote Americans would likely face exorbitant delivery surcharges or lose service entirely.
Once again… the United States is very large.