NationStates Jolt Archive

This guy (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/ryan200503070740.asp)has some good points.
I'l outline some things he has to say


*Cut costs and downsize
*Provides proper competition
*Prices would fall
*It'd save tax payers money, when it gets itself in financial trouble

Read the article(its a year or so old), and let me know what you think.

I support privatizing most of Gov. Co. services. :)

I support privatizing most of Gov. Co. services. :)

Ditto That.

I support privatizing most of Gov. Co. services. :)

I support privatizing something like this, but other things like...healthcare, need to be handled by the gov

Nothing needs to be handled by a government. There's no such thing as a "public good".

Historically, privatization doesn't cut prices, and rarely results in much competition.

Ditto That.

Ditto again, I think UPS has proven itself more capable anyway. The only real loss to the USPS is politicians and their porking privledge. Depends on wether yo think they need that or not.

This guy (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/ryan200503070740.asp)has some good points.
I'l outline some things he has to say


*Cut costs and downsize
*Provides proper competition
*Prices would fall
*It'd save tax payers money, when it gets itself in financial trouble

Read the article(its a year or so old), and let me know what you think.

I have one answer for you: UPS. UPS is the most horrible service I have ever had to deal with. Granted, the USPS hasn't been much better, but I don't think privatizing our mail service would be the best of ideas. Privacy protection would be somewhat difficult, don't you think?

The USPS is incompetent and overpriced. All services should be left to the UPS and FedEx after requiring them to raise standards.

This guy (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/ryan200503070740.asp)has some good points.
I'l outline some things he has to say


*Cut costs and downsize
*Provides proper competition
*Prices would fall
*It'd save tax payers money, when it gets itself in financial trouble

Read the article(its a year or so old), and let me know what you think.

British gov. said this about the Railways.

and the Post Office
and the NHS
and Trust Schools
and Buses
and Electricity
and Water

And is either any cheaper, or better?

Nothing needs to be handled by a government. There's no such thing as a "public good".
Shit I forgot to mention BAAWAKnights' war against reality in the rivalries thread!

I have one answer for you: UPS. UPS is the most horrible service I have ever had to deal with. Granted, the USPS hasn't been much better, but I don't think privatizing our mail service would be the best of ideas. Privacy protection would be somewhat difficult, don't you think?

The USPS already ruffles through anything that looks even marginally suspicious. Especially something that looks like it might be containing drugs. If your package was checked (sometimes randomly) you'll be notified by a little sticker that gives the inspectors name and a breif explanation.

The USPS is incompetent and overpriced. All services should be left to the UPS and FedEx after requiring them to raise standards.

Raise their standards? Their standards are already several times better than anything the Post Office provides. Unlike the USPS, when FedEsx and UPS say Next Day or 2-Day, they mean it. The Postal Service actually does NOT guarantee that a next day package will arrive next day. And they do it in writing!

Ditto again, I think UPS has proven itself more capable anyway. The only real loss to the USPS is politicians and their porking privledge. Depends on wether yo think they need that or not.

Being more capable than the USPS is like saying you are faster than a slug. Sure, it's true, but does it really reflect how capable you are?

Raise their standards? Their standards are already several times better than anything the Post Office provides. Unlike the USPS, when FedEsx and UPS say Next Day or 2-Day, they mean it. The Postal Service actually does NOT guarantee that a next day package will arrive next day. And they do it in writing!
Speed of delivery is not related to standards, in fact, the speed of delivery hurts standards, working standards. Flying for the UPS and FedEx are the most dangerous pilot jobs in the world. They don't have the same restrictions and regulations as the public aerospace sector and it makes it much more dangerous for the pilots.

Nope. Privatising monopolies doesn't work.

Every other nation that has tried hurling its standard postal system into the market has found its service worsen, and its costs spiral out of control.

But how many other nations have major competing delivery services?
The service and costs can't get any worse logically.

As least with the government running the post office you can be sure your letter/package will actually arrive to its destination.

This guy (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/ryan200503070740.asp)has some good points.
I'l outline some things he has to say


[quote]*Cut costs and downsize
In other words, reduce service and lay people off.
*Provides proper competition
If there were such a demand, a private company would have stepped in already. Remember, the postal service is not subsidized. It pays its own way, and is one of the few government programs to show a profit most years, without being able to raise rates on its own.

*Prices would fall
The only way prices would fall is if you slash services and the wages and benefits of letter carriers and postal employees, and that's assuming that you don't make up the difference in the attempt to increase profits. That's the big issue here--corporations exist to make profits. Government services don't have that mandate.

*It'd save tax payers money, when it gets itself in financial trouble See above.

Look, there are a great many services that the private sector is superior to the government in providing. But this isn't one of them. Our postal service is one of the best in the world, and one of the cheapest at the same time. And for an added bonus, it provides a lot of solid, middle-class jobs that wouldn't otherwise exist.

As least with the government running the post office you can be sure your letter/package will actually arrive to its destination.

No..no were not. There are even reports of thousands of letters being found in retired US postman's homes because they got bored before they delivered them all. The USPS is far worse at making sure you get your package than FedeX or UPS.

I support privatizing most of Gov. Co. services. :)
Moi aussi.

Raise their standards? Their standards are already several times better than anything the Post Office provides. Unlike the USPS, when FedEsx and UPS say Next Day or 2-Day, they mean it. The Postal Service actually does NOT guarantee that a next day package will arrive next day. And they do it in writing!

UPS isn't capable of shit. I paid Next Day shipping for this wonderful USB headset. It shipped on Wednesday and didn't arrive till the following Monday even though the tracking information said it had been delivered on Friday. I never got my money back from UPS either., Fuck UPS. Fed-Ex and DHL are superior. What can brown do for you indeed...brown can shove theirselves up their own asses.

UPS isn't capable of shit. I paid Next Day shipping for this wonderful USB headset. It shipped on Wednesday and didn't arrive till the following Monday even though the tracking information said it had been delivered on Friday. I never got my money back from UPS either., Fuck UPS. Fed-Ex and DHL are superior. What can brown do for you indeed...brown can shove theirselves up their own asses.

You seem to have bad luck with a lot of stuff bud. I use UPS quite a bit, an dhave always gotten my packages right when I was supposed to.

The only time something didn't show up on time was when the other end didn't get off their ass in time.

You seem to have bad luck with a lot of stuff bud. I use UPS quite a bit, an dhave always gotten my packages right when I was supposed to.

The only time something didn't show up on time was when the other end didn't get off their ass in time.

What's more interesting is that everytime I've ever had anything shipped by FedEx, it always arrives a day early. No matter what. Amazing, really.

No..no were not. There are even reports of thousands of letters being found in retired US postman's homes because they got bored before they delivered them all. The USPS is far worse at making sure you get your package than FedeX or UPS.

That sounds like the occassional asshole who you will always get working for you. I certainly have never sent anything out that doesn't arrive when it should. If anything they should reduce their prices, especially now that gas prices have fallen. That would certainly make me see the USPS in a better light.

No

That sounds like the occassional asshole who you will always get working for you. I certainly have never sent anything out that doesn't arrive when it should. If anything they should reduce their prices, especially now that gas prices have fallen. That would certainly make me see the USPS in a better light.

It's not just the sleazebags though, they have a horrible record when it comes to delivering packages. However, I will admit that it is not their inefficiency which drives me to dismiss them. I dont particularly like Gov't corporations.

Isn't the USPS Constitutionally mandated or something?

Isn't the USPS Constitutionally mandated or something?

Article I, Section 8:

"To establish post offices and post roads;"

Now if only I knew what that meant in their times...:rolleyes:

It's not just the sleazebags though, they have a horrible record when it comes to delivering packages. However, I will admit that it is not their inefficiency which drives me to dismiss them. I dont particularly like Gov't corporations.

Well it IS a government corporation so it makes sense for it to be inefficient. ;)

Mistakes are always going to happen, if it was really bad there would have been more complaints and news coverage then what I've noticed. As for govt corporations I think that with things like utilities it is better for the gov to own them. Seems when they go private then costs go up along with service problems.

Well it IS a government corporation so it makes sense for it to be inefficient. ;)

Mistakes are always going to happen, if it was really bad there would have been more complaints and news coverage then what I've noticed. As for govt corporations I think that with things like utilities it is better for the gov to own them. Seems when they go private then costs go up along with service problems.

For the amount of mail they handle, the USPS is extraordinarily efficient, especially when you factor in what they charge. There's no way a private company could do it cheaper without slashing wages, services and benefits.

Article I, Section 8:

"To establish post offices and post roads;"

Now if only I knew what that meant in their times...:rolleyes:

Exactly what I thought.

I'll stick with the constitutions rules.

What's more interesting is that everytime I've ever had anything shipped by FedEx, it always arrives a day early. No matter what. Amazing, really.

I'll agree there, FedEx is the better of the two. But UPS is still loads better than USPS. I've never dealt with DHL. I think they have less pickup points in my areas that the Postal Service does. And thats saying alot.


For the amount of mail they handle, the USPS is extraordinarily efficient, especially when you factor in what they charge. There's no way a private company could do it cheaper without slashing wages, services and benefits.

How much of that pricing levels is because of tax-supplied subsidies though?

Well it IS a government corporation so it makes sense for it to be inefficient. ;)

Mistakes are always going to happen, if it was really bad there would have been more complaints and news coverage then what I've noticed. As for govt corporations I think that with things like utilities it is better for the gov to own them. Seems when they go private then costs go up along with service problems.

The US doesnt really have all that much practice with running utilities though, does it? What do we have besides the USPS and Hoover's power company (or was it Roosevelts?) Im trying to think of something we've even privatized lately for comparison.

For the amount of mail they handle, the USPS is extraordinarily efficient, especially when you factor in what they charge. There's no way a private company could do it cheaper without slashing wages, services and benefits.
How exactly do government corporations do it then? :) Surely, they must have some magical elixir that makes them so wonderful at delivering services to the public.

Now, I have no problem with publicly owned natural monopolies so long as a free market is allowed to compete with them - when these monopolies no longer are natural, they must then be dismantled and allow the free market to succeed them - the government can of course continue competing with the free market if it pleases. It is problematic when said monopolies retain their stranglehold on the market when it need not be necessary.

The US doesnt really have all that much practice with running utilities though, does it? What do we have besides the USPS and Hoover's power company (or was it Roosevelts?) Im trying to think of something we've even privatized lately for comparison.

Very little, we had regulated industries, that were privately owned, but heavily controlled by the government, but very little in the way of government owned industries.

How exactly do government corporations do it then? :) Surely, they must have some magical elixir that makes them so wonderful at delivering services to the public.

Good old mandatory taxation.

Article I, Section 8:

"To establish post offices and post roads;"

Now if only I knew what that meant in their times...:rolleyes:

Well, hate to break the levity, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it meant the following:

"To establish post offices and post roads;"

I know, it's a huge leap of faith, but it's the closest thing we can get without actually being there at the Convention.

How exactly do government corporations do it then? :) Surely, they must have some magical elixir that makes them so wonderful at delivering services to the public.

Easy--profit isn't the motive. Private corporations have to grow profit every year in order to be considered a success--it's not even enough just to stay static. But all the government postal service has to do is break even--no stockholders to report to--so it can spend more on wages and expanded services and keep itself running well, and when we're talking about something with the level of infrastructure the post office needs, that's a big deal to the bottom line.

There are plenty of services where I'm more than willing to let businesses fight it out and charge all the market will bear. I'm a capitalist, though I look for a good deal more regulation than many do. But let's do away with the canard that private industry is always more efficient than the government. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't, and in this case, they aren't.

I'm from Canada - land of the Crown Corporations - and I'm really anti-privatization. Governments can rake in a lot of extra tax revenue by holding on to businesses. One of Canada's most popular crown corporations sells Liquor, and in Ontario alone it makes about a billion dollars in revenue per year. It also makes it harder for under-age people to purchase alcohol. There are lots of benefits to privatizing certain things - and lots of benefits to keeping things public.

Well, hate to break the levity, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it meant the following:

"To establish post offices and post roads;"

I know, it's a huge leap of faith, but it's the closest thing we can get without actually being there at the Convention.

In modern terms one could argue that it means the government is supposed to provide infrastructure for long range communications? I wonder if this could mean I could sue the government for free Internet, *muses*

Easy--profit isn't the motive. Private corporations have to grow profit every year in order to be considered a success--it's not even enough just to stay static. But all the government postal service has to do is break even--no stockholders to report to--so it can spend more on wages and expanded services and keep itself running well, and when we're talking about something with the level of infrastructure the post office needs, that's a big deal to the bottom line.
But then how can one be certain that the government is charging the lowest possible price for optimal services? All it does, after all, is tax.

Another thing - wouldn't a monopoly always make profit anyway? Therefore, so long as a private firm remains a natural monopoly, won't it always be successful in its endeavours?

I don't have a problem so long as government provision of the service is freely competitive - I do though when certain governments refuse to let go of a monopoly which is no longer natural.

I'm from Canada - land of the Crown Corporations - and I'm really anti-privatization. Governments can rake in a lot of extra tax revenue by holding on to businesses. One of Canada's most popular crown corporations sells Liquor, and in Ontario alone it makes about a billion dollars in revenue per year. It also makes it harder for under-age people to purchase alcohol. There are lots of benefits to privatizing certain things - and lots of benefits to keeping things public.
Hell, let's have the government completely replace the free-market then! Yes, it could be just like the good ole' USSR! And everyone knows what a utopia it was. :)

On a serious note, I have no problem with a government maintaining certain stakes in the free-market, as long as it competes freely.

Raise their standards? Their standards are already several times better than anything the Post Office provides. Unlike the USPS, when FedEsx and UPS say Next Day or 2-Day, they mean it. The Postal Service actually does NOT guarantee that a next day package will arrive next day. And they do it in writing!

You are talking priority mail, which is 2 to 3 day service, no different from a standard first class letter in the way the USPS handles it. Express Mail IS guaranteed; you just have to go to your post office to get your money back. They have tracking numbers and everything, and the carrier scans it when it is delivered, so it even has a time stamp. Now, late deliveries happen, just like they do elsewhere; but no one is going to say a thing about it unless you mention it.

As a former USPS employee ( I was a city carrier for 5 years), I have a lot that I HATE the post office for. But this privatization stuff is stupid as hell. Do you know what kind of security risk it would be to let just anyone put something in a mailbox? You'll have five, or ten, or fifty small delivery firms, which will all have to have access to business mailrooms. The whole sanctity of the mailbox is there for a reason: security. That's why it is illegal for UPS or the delivery take-out place to put anything in your mailbox. If you let just anyone put something in there, any government office, or business that somebody doesn't like, will be the victim of a bomb, or anthrax or something of the like, within a WEEK. I guarantee it.

The things to do:

1. Get rid of a lot of management. The post office has more managers per employee than probably any business in existance. At least they aren't paid anywhere near as much as private sector executives. If they go private though...The fact that they treat their employees so badly doesn't help either. I know people think the USPS is overunionized. The union IS powerful, but it is needed. Yes, mailmen make a lot of money for what they do- but they put up with a lot of shit, and are at a great hazard everyday. 9 out of 10 mailmen don't deliver those sweet curbside routes, you know. They deliver to government offices people want to bomb, business people send poison to, carry checks people want to rob. Most mailmen have walking routes too- so they are carrying a bag full of mail and balancing packages on their head while fending off someones bulldog.

2. Stop giving junk mail senders such huge discounts. It makes delivery ten times harder on carriers when they have 2 tons of junk to deliver a day. Bulk mail senders don't pay 37 cents- depending on how much they send, they pay as little as 2 cents per item. Making them pay a reasonable price will a) make more money per item, and b) cut down on mail volume, so carriers can deliver a larger area, there is less sorting needed, etc.

3. Stop delivering packages. I know the USPS thinks it is cashing in on the package delivery market, but they need to get out. This is something Fed-Ex and UPS do much better, because they are designed for it. The USPS carriers vehicles are not set up for package delivery, the sorting infrastructure is not designed for it, if they stuck to letters, they could get so much more done.

But then how can one be certain that the government is charging the lowest possible price for optimal services? All it does, after all, is tax.In this case, Congress oversees the budget. The USPS has to go to Congress to get a raise in their rates--they can't do it on their own--and so the end result is that they have to show that they're either already losing money or will be if the rates don't go up.

Another thing - wouldn't a monopoly always make profit anyway? Therefore, so long as a private firm remains a natural monopoly, won't it always be successful in its endeavours?

I don't have a problem so long as government provision of the service is freely competitive - I do though when certain governments refuse to let go of a monopoly which is no longer natural.
There's no enforced monopoly here--any company that wishes could set up their own national mail service. They just wouldn't be able to compete with the existing structure of the USPS. The startup costs would be too high. Remember--the USPS pays for itself. It doesn't get tax money. But part of its advantage is that it's been around so long that it's got a huge advantage in infrastructure over any new challenger, and since it doesn't have to worry about showing as large a profit as possible, it runs at a lower overall cost per unit handled.

It's not a perfect system by any means, but it's a damn fine one all the same.

Privatised postal companies aren't necessarily always good. I ordered a package through them for overnight delivery. It arrived two or three days late, and the deliverer had somehow managed to jam it behind the milkbox. It was hell trying to get it out.

The US doesnt really have all that much practice with running utilities though, does it? What do we have besides the USPS and Hoover's power company (or was it Roosevelts?) Im trying to think of something we've even privatized lately for comparison.

The federal government took over the railways for a time in the late 1800s to early 1900s. During that time, prices fell drastically, safety improved, and the service was far better.

The federal government took over the railways for a time in the late 1800s to early 1900s. During that time, prices fell drastically, safety improved, and the service was far better.

Im familiar with the railway takeover. Do you have proof of any of the safety, service, and prices claims?

In this case, Congress oversees the budget. The USPS has to go to Congress to get a raise in their rates--they can't do it on their own--and so the end result is that they have to show that they're either already losing money or will be if the rates don't go up.
Is this always efficient though?

There's no enforced monopoly here--any company that wishes could set up their own national mail service. They just wouldn't be able to compete with the existing structure of the USPS. The startup costs would be too high. Remember--the USPS pays for itself. It doesn't get tax money. But part of its advantage is that it's been around so long that it's got a huge advantage in infrastructure over any new challenger, and since it doesn't have to worry about showing as large a profit as possible, it runs at a lower overall cost per unit handled.

So essentially, it's more like a publicly owned corporation. With regard to natural monopolies I am not so hostile to the notion -- if a corporation can find a way to overthrow the reigning monopoly, then it's likely no longer to be natural anyway. My main beef is with governments which enforce monopolies, or aid them via restrictive practises, and then won't let go of them.

It's not a perfect system by any means, but it's a damn fine one all the same.
As far as publicly owned ones go, it seems fine.

Privatised postal companies aren't necessarily always good. I ordered a package through them for overnight delivery. It arrived two or three days late, and the deliverer had somehow managed to jam it behind the milkbox. It was hell trying to get it out.
Sounds like an idiot deliverer - did you complain about this to the company?

I support privatizing most of Gov. Co. services. :)

Yeaaaa!!!!

We can have quality employees like those that are in airline security :rolleyes:

Sounds like an idiot deliverer - did you complain about this to the company?
I complained about the time it took. All they said was that it was "on the way". It turns out that they forgot to ship it.

Im familiar with the railway takeover. Do you have proof of any of the safety, service, and prices claims?

Only several history books that I no longer own.

the us postal service delivers EVERYWHERE. you dont have to wonder how its going to get from NY to CA, who has the routes, if service A or service B is cheaper, it just goes.

if youre dealing NYC to LA no problem, if youre dealing socorro newmexico to dade city florida, you have a much different problem. for ME, fedex and ups are pains in the ass. i live in a small town, there is a ups facility here but it doesnt open for public business until 4pm. there is NO fedex facility so if i cant be home to sign for a package, i have to have it held in albuquerque 75 miles away. i had to do that last week.

the post office is much easier to deal with. the parcel post rates arent more expensive for things i send. ive checked and UPS cant beat USPS and for me, usps is much more convenient.

so are you going to mandate 6 day a week delivery to every address in the US for anyone taking up the business? its going to cost you more. if they get to pick and choose, its going to be less convenient.

what are you going to do with the billions of dollars worth of realestate and equipment now owned by the USPS?

and here is the kicker on why it cant save us money.

the USPS does federal government business in every town in the US. they hand out the forms for selective service registration, they are the place you go to get your passport, they even deal with customs. those services will still have to exist and be paid for. what good would it do to have a letter cost 25 cents if you have to pay for the federal services to be done in another way?

besides, how many letters do you send? how much can it possibly save you in a year? $10? i dont spend $10 a year in postage now.

besides, how many letters do you send? how much can it possibly save you in a year? $10? i dont spend $10 a year in postage now.

and when it gets itself in a finacial shit hole, who does it rely on? The taxpayers.

Shit I forgot to mention BAAWAKnights' war against reality in the rivalries thread!
Ah yes. So you can prove that there is such a thing as a "public good", then. Let's see it.

The mail is about the only thing we can trust the government with still...

This guy (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/ryan200503070740.asp)has some good points.
I'l outline some things he has to say


*Cut costs and downsize
*Provides proper competition
*Prices would fall
*It'd save tax payers money, when it gets itself in financial trouble

Read the article(its a year or so old), and let me know what you think.

LOL, cut costs. The USPS runs on less costs than any other similar transport service. Meanwhile, the way it would cut costs if privatized is basically by cutting services. People who are in rural areas who now get home delivery? Yeah, that's gone. Anyone in a rural area would either have to start paying a fee for the delivery they now get for free or drive into a major town center for their mail. That is, if you actually wanted to get it as cheaply as now.

Prices would fall? Are you kidding me? The USPS has cheaper prices for what they offer than any company in any country in the world! Where else can you get a letter sent anywhere in the country for less than 50 cents?

Save the taxpayers money? LOL, this guy seriously doesn't know what he's talking about. The USPS doesn't receive taxpayer money. The only tax-funded salary is that of the Postmaster General, which is more of a ceremonial position than anything else. In fact, the federal government currently owes the USPS money because it borrowed from a USPS surplus 10 or 15 years ago. One of the biggest misconceptions that people have is the idea that taxpayers pay for the USPS. They do not. The USPS is run completely off of the money paid by consumers.

Every so often people talk about privatizing the USPS, and it's always still a bad idea. All it would do is make delivery of those things currently sent through the mail less convenient, more expensive, and overall less reliable.

This guy (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/ryan200503070740.asp)has some good points.
I'l outline some things he has to say


*Cut costs and downsize
*Provides proper competition
*Prices would fall
*It'd save tax payers money, when it gets itself in financial trouble

Read the article(its a year or so old), and let me know what you think.

That's retarded. Prices seldom fall when government services are privatized. UPS, FedEx, and that yellow one are private and which of them will let you sent a letter anywhere in the country for 32 cents?

The faults he complains about are the price of stability. As a government agency their jobs are secure. In exchange for that security they don't strike or demand exhorbitant wages. The other delivery companies have powerful unions that will strike to protect themselves.

The guy is basing his position on ideology more than anything else. Like most ideologies, it will fail if not examined critically, and this guy's argument doesn't even stand up to cursory examination.

The faults he complains about are the price of stability. As a government agency their jobs are secure. In exchange for that security they don't strike or demand exhorbitant wages. The other delivery companies have powerful unions that will strike to protect themselves.
Wouldn't a partial solution then be to weaken trade unions to the point that they secure their members reasonable wages, but not exhorbitant ones? Ie weaken their role as pressure groups and transform them more into a bartering agency, as they are meant to be.

Nothing needs to be handled by a government. There's no such thing as a "public good".

Air.

Let's respond to the idiot, shall we?

If USPS were a competitive company — as opposed to bloated federal bureaucracy — stamp prices would be falling, not rising. Despite new technology — like modern reader/sorters that process over 30,000 pieces of mail per hour — stamp prices have risen with inflation since 1970. Imagine if the price of a phone call or sending an e-mail rose with inflation for 30 years.

Guess what the biggest cost for the USPS (and any such company) is? I'll give you a clue: it isn't machinery, OCR's, or any other similar thing. It's *drum roll* the cost of transportation! The USPS, like all of us, has to pay for gas! It has to pay for the mail to be put on a plane or a truck and sent to wherever it is going. It then pays for gas to get it to your house or PO box. If gas prices go up, the cost of running the post office goes up as well! Surprise surprise!

Raising the price of letter delivery just drives customers away at an even faster rate.

Yes, because they can send those things for less than 50 cents per letter anywhere else. :rolleyes:

it can borrow from the U.S. Treasury at favorable rates, and, most importantly, it milks the cash cow of a government-enforced monopoly on letter delivery.

Can it now? Is that why the US Treasury actually owes the USPS money, instead of the other way around? Is that why they refuse to pay the money back?

But USPS is still massively oversized, and waste abounds. Forget about the Pentagon's $600 toilet-seat covers. The average postal worker earns over 25 percent more than his private-sector, factory-worker counterpart. No wonder labor still accounts for two thirds of USPS costs, compared to about 50 percent at private delivery companies.

What USPS employers are factory workers? And believe me, they don't get exhorbitant wages.



Yeah, so basically this guy is shooting off at the mouth, without the slightest clue as to what he is talking about. The *only* good point he makes is the amount of power the unions have in the USPS. Getting a USPS employee fired pretty much takes an act of God or a string of felonies. But other than that, the rest of what he has to say is quite simply BS.

Air.
Since when does the government take it upon itself to provide air? :rolleyes:

Air.
That's not a public good, as it's so abundant as to not be a good, period.

Competition is good. Privatisation does not guarantee competition.

Privatisation and keeping the company bound in red tape and regulations is quite possibly the worst way to go. Which is therefore of course the way the Australian government is proceeding with Telstra at the moment. :rolleyes:

and when it gets itself in a finacial shit hole, who does it rely on? The taxpayers.Wrong. It goes to Congress and asks for permission to raise rates. Again--the postal service runs in the black most years.