Say Anything Blog

Personally, I say its high time we got rid of the post office and turned the industry over entirely to private enterprise.

Rob, are you an impulsive person?  Seems to me you make an wawful lot of judgements and decisions without actually exporing the ramifications of same?

I’m a big fan of services like FedEx and DHL and the like.  But are you actually going to pretend private mail carriers are going to be cheaper or more efficient?  Additionally, what happens to those areas the private carriers simply won’t service because it’s not profitable for them to do so?

As I said, I use FedEx and other services frequently; they’ve lost packages or delivered them late---just like the Postal service.

Additionally, what happens to those areas the private carriers simply won’t service because it’s not profitable for them to do so?

Ever heard of capitalism?  The free market will decide what is worth doing and what it not.  If there is a demand for a service, they will pay whatever the company decides it is necessary to charge to provide that service at a reasonable profit and to be competitive at the same time.  What reasonable argument can be made that the post office is a necessary or vital institution that does what no other company would be willing to do?

Private industries have been historically reluctant to make the investments for infrastructure

And what the hell is that anyway?  The only reason we’re technologically advanced in this country is because of gov’t?  Is that seriously what you’re saying?

What’s more, had you an adult read you the article you’d know the USPS runs at a profit–that’s capitalism.

Sorry, JG… profit does not equal capitalism.  just to socialists like you:

Capitalism: An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

The USPS is not capitalism.  It’s gov’t bureaucracy

Aaron: Seriously. You have no clue what you’re talking about.  Much of what makes capitalism possible is an infrastructure to support it.  Private industries have been historically reluctant to make the investments for infrastructure.

What’s more, had you an adult read you the article you’d know the USPS runs at a profit--that’s capitalism.

What reasonable argument can be made that the post office is a necessary or vital institution that does what no other company would be willing to do?

As I pointed out, many private carriers are unwilling to service locations because its not profitable for them to do so.  And I’m not talking just about remote rural or wilderness places--I’m talking about places such as CONUS military facilities.

Is it worth having a massive, inefficient and costly bureacracy in place in order to provide service to the few places that companies like FedEx and UPS won’t service?

And who’s to say that third party companies wouldn’t spring up to act as a “drop point” for those sort of delivery services?

No, its time to privatize the postal service in this country.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

As I pointed out, many private carriers are unwilling to service locations because its not profitable for them to do so. And I’m not talking just about remote rural or wilderness places–I’m talking about places such as CONUS military facilities.

You’re being silly, JG.  The only reason that private companies are unwilling to service various locations is because the USPS can do it for much cheaper (using a flat rate type structure) so it’s not worth it for private companies to service particular locations… but if there was no USPS (or if they were ‘bought out’ the fees would just be adjusted so it was worth the while of whatever company to service such locations.

I note the story makes no mention of an increase in rates for Junk mail.

JadeGold says:

Private industries have been historically reluctant to make the investments for infrastructure.

and Aaron responds:

And what the hell is that anyway? The only reason we’re technologically advanced in this country is because of gov’t? Is that seriously what you’re saying?

Aaron, I have to agree with JG on this one.  I don’t think JG is saying that the government is solely responsible for technological advances, just that part of the role they play is to provide large-scale infrastructure.  Imagine how our country would function without a federal interstate system for example.

There are good economic reasons to support the assertion that government is a necessary cog in the economics wheel, though I don’t know whether JG is aware of them or not.  At some level, even in a capitalism-driven society, the government plays the role of an economic facilitator.

I don’t claim to be an expert on this so I would just say google “optimal size of government” and the related topic google “optimal taxation rate.”

Who said anything about the highway systems?  I didn’t til now…

If the only reason you can think of to keep around the Post Office is because the highway system is good, then you’re certifiably nuts..

Look, if we allowed UPS, DHL, or FedEX to buy out the USPS and incorporate it into their private corporations (or maybe divide it up between the three, hold an auction for different parts), you’d end up with a more efficient way to deliever the mail and no gov’t interaction at all.  What would be wrong with that scenario?

hey rob, my question is, how would the post office cease to exist if companies, now, aren’t doing anything to deliver standard letters now? aaron’s idea of “breaking-up” the post office sounds pretty good.  it would be kind of like how the phone company was broken up.  however, would UPS, FedEX or any of those others would even WANT to take over delivering letters? have they ever tried in the past?

well, shoot, some how i skipped aaron’s post...sorry.

and jadegold, aaron was just giving an example. i’m sure if other bidders wanted to invest in the letter-carrying business it would/should be allowed, however, UPS, DHL and FedEX are names people trust and would probably have a better chance at succeeding.

My idea is that the Post Office would cease to exist and, in its place, would exist private companies providing delivery service for everything form postal letters to large packages.  If you want to send something you choose a company offering the services you want and go with it.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Look, if we allowed UPS, DHL, or FedEX to buy out the USPS and incorporate it into their private corporations (or maybe divide it up between the three, hold an auction for different parts), you’d end up with a more efficient way to deliever the mail and no gov’t interaction at all. What would be wrong with that scenario?

Whatta maroon.

You give us this big spiel on the wonders of capitalism--then you propose the Govt. divvy up the country to the high bidders?  Doesn’t sound like capitalism to me when you’re regulating what parts of the country a business can or cannot operate in.

Plus, what incentive is there for a company to offer good service and fair prices when you’ve awarded one company exclusive and sole access to a market?

Sweet Jesus, Aaron.  You really have trouble getting those synapses to fire in sequence.

Canuck, they can’t compete with the USPS prices on letter delivery.  Which does mean that, should the post office be eliminated, prices for letter postage would likely go up.

But really, I don’t see that as being such a bad thing.  With the technology available to us today (email, fax machines, etc.) its about time we did away with some of the needless mail we send out these days.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Aaron says:

If the only reason you can think of to keep around the Post Office is because the highway system is good, then you’re certifiably nuts..

I’m probably certifiably nuts, but that’s another topic…

I was picking up on the infrastructure question, and gave the example of highways as a place where industry isn’t going to provide it.  I take it from your response that you agree with me, even if you think I’m daft.

Next, I will point out that there are infrastructure issues for postal delivery as well.  One example is the postal service is required to maintain postal stations in remote areas.  FedEx is only going to place them in profitable locations, and would abandon backwater locations.  In fact, if you want to answer Rob’s question as to why postal fees are so high (other than the obvious answer of rising energy costs), it is precisely because the post office is required to maintain the stations regardless of whether they break even or not.

Third, from what I’ve heard, neither FedEx or UPS want to handle personal letters in any case, other than the express variety where they can charge enough to meet their margin.  Thus, you may not get any bidders.  This ignores the problems with the monopoly that you’ve created at with your scenario, and the associated government regulation it would entail.

why can’t ups or fedex just start delivering letters? what’s stopping them? they already will deliver packages and have ways to deliver letters via next day air and such. what is stopping them from taking that next step?

You give us this big spiel on the wonders of capitalism–then you propose the Govt. divvy up the country to the high bidders? Doesn’t sound like capitalism to me when you’re regulating what parts of the country a business can or cannot operate in.

I didn’t spiel, I defined because you dont’ understand the concept of capitalism apparently.  And who said anything about regulating? I certainly didn’t…

Plus, what incentive is there for a company to offer good service and fair prices when you’ve awarded one company exclusive and sole access to a market?

Who said anything about exclusive?  My example simply would sell off the personel, infrastructure, etc of the exsisting company to give whatever company that buys it a leaping point from which to take over.  Other companies would start competing very shortly.  This is called capitalism and free market.  k?

rob, when you talk about eliminating USPS are you suggesting that private companies place bids on the USPS and take over the existing buildings, employees, etc, or start from stratch? and why can’t they compete? is it because they don’t have the capital to start it up or because their really is too much of a loss when dealing with letters?

Haha, serious Rob… You’re about to send half the population over 55 into cardiac arrest with talk like that…

sorry rob, i like getting snail mail. i like getting that hand written letter from grandma. yep, i sure do.

First off, I love you use the word “daft” haha

Logically, if USPS makes a profit they have a business structure set up that if another company bought out, would then turn them a profit.  They could also feasibly integrate over time (like DHL is doing with Airborne in the US) and become more profitable.  The reason USPS is the only small parcel delivery (letters and such) in America is because for a long time, they were the only ones legally allowed to do so.  By the time others sued to get the right to deliver packages, USPS had a complete monopoly not worth competing with.  Anyway, now I’m rambling…

I don’t think you’re daft for bringing up the highway system.  It’s just using that example, eliminating the USPS would be comprible to selling Caltrans here in California to a private company to maintain the roads.... then again, with the kind of roads we have around here, that may not be such a bad idea either…

Here’s a radical thought: If no company can make money delivering letters...then why do we need them?  We have the technology available now to do away with most of the need to send letters in the first place.

Just think of all the paper we’d save!  Not to mention the tax break we could get once the post office is off the backs of taxpayers.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

What, granny can’t scan her letter into PDF format for you?

Ah well, it was worth a shot.  Maybe not now...but in the future perhaps.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob says:

Here’s a radical thought: If no company can make money delivering letters…then why do we need them?

Note that my point wasn’t that carriers couldn’t make money at delivering letters (though the business model is very different than that of express mail).  It was that places like Podunk, ID (pop 230) would never get serviced.  Stores which don’t individually earn a profit are usually targeted for extinction.

I’m guessing what would happen is that rural areas don’t get service, letter costs increase dramatically (got to pay the stock holders) and cost of mail no-longer uniform point-to-point.  All that said, I agree that likely the day will come when the post office shuts down and all letters get sent electronically.

[...] Say Anything and Digger’s Realm are covering a Fox News story about the United States Postal Service wanting to raise the price of a stamp to 39 cents “to help cover pension obligations and an expected decline in letter volume”. [...]

If you don’t like post office rate hikes, simply don’t use the post office!  There are now 3 other great services out there for sending packages: UPS, FedEx, and DHL which are available to all areas of the country, even NoDak.  You can compare them all against the post office rates at sites like http://www.shippingsidekick.com

Don’t complain; do something different!