Let's think about this, taxpayer funds are used collectively to provide services that everyone uses. That sounds a little Socialist to me. Everything on this list is primarily paid for by all of our taxes collectively. That's kinda the basis of Socialism. I completely understand that Socialism might seem a little scary especially if its misused but other systems like democracy have been proven that it is also acceptable to corruption.
No one said anything about USPS turning a profit. I said inefficient and waste of taxpayer money.
Those are logically equivalent. If the service was turning a profit, it wouldn't need taxpayer money. Also, not turning a profit is not evidence of inefficiency. The USPS charges less than their corporate competitors.
it would just open up more avenues for other businesses to step into this market and create more competition.
This is silly. Fed Ex, UPS, and the USPS have huge existing networks of infrastructure. The lack of artificial competition would not erase barriers to entry, it would erect them. The large players in the market, with their existing infrastructure, would out-compete any start-ups with no problem. What's more, with such a large share of the market held by so few firms, the risk of collusion is absolutely as high as I have implied it is. That this is illegal is no impediment for large corporations, because the consequences are so low, and the government institutions responsible for enforcing those weak consequences have been largely de-fanged.
Even if you disregard that, artificial competition is still competition. Your argument that the USPS is a waste of taxpayer money is entirely reliant on the idea that we receive no benefit in return for any money that gets put into it. Without the USPS operating at a loss, prices would rise. This would put a drag on the economy as a whole, because almost every business either buys or sells something that must be shipped. And all this while Fed Ex and UPS provide fewer services than the USPS.
This USPS argument is a zombie that can't be killed. The postal service isn't designed to turn a profit, ffs.
If not for the postal service, fed ex and UPS would set their prices far higher and every other business would pay higher shipping costs. It is precisely because leaving this area of essential service to the "free market" would produce a drag on the economy that we don't.
The USPS is a subsidy for businesses and citizens, not a source of government revenue. This is by design.
As for socialism, that word has different meanings to different people, at different times, in different places. Social programs and post-market redistribution are what passes for socialism in the American vernacular.
diesel4420 ago
Let's think about this, taxpayer funds are used collectively to provide services that everyone uses. That sounds a little Socialist to me. Everything on this list is primarily paid for by all of our taxes collectively. That's kinda the basis of Socialism. I completely understand that Socialism might seem a little scary especially if its misused but other systems like democracy have been proven that it is also acceptable to corruption.
Kurplow ago
Those are logically equivalent. If the service was turning a profit, it wouldn't need taxpayer money. Also, not turning a profit is not evidence of inefficiency. The USPS charges less than their corporate competitors.
This is silly. Fed Ex, UPS, and the USPS have huge existing networks of infrastructure. The lack of artificial competition would not erase barriers to entry, it would erect them. The large players in the market, with their existing infrastructure, would out-compete any start-ups with no problem. What's more, with such a large share of the market held by so few firms, the risk of collusion is absolutely as high as I have implied it is. That this is illegal is no impediment for large corporations, because the consequences are so low, and the government institutions responsible for enforcing those weak consequences have been largely de-fanged.
Even if you disregard that, artificial competition is still competition. Your argument that the USPS is a waste of taxpayer money is entirely reliant on the idea that we receive no benefit in return for any money that gets put into it. Without the USPS operating at a loss, prices would rise. This would put a drag on the economy as a whole, because almost every business either buys or sells something that must be shipped. And all this while Fed Ex and UPS provide fewer services than the USPS.
diesel4420 ago
Damn! Dantewolfwood just got...burned.
Kurplow ago
This USPS argument is a zombie that can't be killed. The postal service isn't designed to turn a profit, ffs.
If not for the postal service, fed ex and UPS would set their prices far higher and every other business would pay higher shipping costs. It is precisely because leaving this area of essential service to the "free market" would produce a drag on the economy that we don't.
The USPS is a subsidy for businesses and citizens, not a source of government revenue. This is by design.
As for socialism, that word has different meanings to different people, at different times, in different places. Social programs and post-market redistribution are what passes for socialism in the American vernacular.
Asking why that is can be a useful exercise.