7 ms·

"If you think about the USPS as an independent corporation, it would be crazy to think about these results..." I agree. But why should we think of it that way

by rwl 16y ago

"If you think about the USPS as an independent corporation, it would be crazy to think about these results..." I agree. But why should we think of it that way? The Postal Service was originally conceived as an essential piece of national infrastructure. Why should we think of it as an "independent" entity that needs to turn a profit? Does the highway system turn a profit? How about the Federal Reserve, or the National Institutes of Health? What's important is that the USPS continue to have enough funding to provide its service in an accessible, timely, and reliable manner. That is what makes it a critical piece of infrastructure. Like it or not, it is still essential to be able to communicate with hard copies. (Why? For one thing, we don't, as citizens, all have an official electronic mail box. Physical mail also bears information about its transport -- where it went, whether anyone else read it along the way, whether it was delivered and read -- in a way that most electronic communication doesn't. We don't have a unified way of finding out how to communicate with someone online, and the means we do have are all owned by private corporations that cannot be relied on to provide that information in perpetuity. And so on.) I agree that, for many things, there are ways to communicate that have advantages the Postal Service doesn't offer. But I cannot imagine having to sacrifice what makes that service valuable in the name of making it profitable, or always having to rely on alternative services, especially for critical or official communication. We're going to need a public post office for some time yet. And as communication continues to move online, the need for a reliable, public system for delivering that communication will grow even further.

gojomo 16y ago
For one thing, we don't, as citizens, all have an official electronic mail box. A $8.5 billion subsidy to cover this last year's losses could have bought 20 million Americans iPads/netbooks. If we're going to subsidize universal service, let's do it in a modern fashion. And let's focus on those people and regions that would get left out otherwise. There's no need to federalize things everywhere -- including in cities where competing alternatives would be eager to operate -- to cover a few edge cases for poor and rural delivery.
- rwl 16y ago
  A $8.5 billion subsidy to cover this last year's losses could have bought 20 million Americans iPads/netbooks. What, exactly, would that achieve? Not the same function that the USPS does. Sure, 20 million more people would have a device, but they wouldn't have a "U.S. Email address" in the same way that they have a "U.S. Mail address". They would just have a way to use someone else's privately-owned infrastructure. Who knows how long that would last, or how reliable it would be? If we're going to subsidize universal service, let's do it in a modern fashion. I agree. But that means what we should be doing is building public infrastructure for new forms of communication, not farming it out to private infrastructure (which decides whether or not to deliver mail, first and foremost, on the basis of whether it is profitable) in order to save a buck. Let's have a national electronic service that: - provides an "address" [1] to every citizen, with a directory that allows people to find each other - provides guaranteed, reliable, on-time delivery at minimal cost to the sender - guarantees secure communications - provides a channel for official communications, from voting to tax forms to jury duty summons [1] I'm not sure if "address" is the right metaphor or not. Certainly, a mere "government email address" wouldn't be sufficient. The basic point is that every individual citizen ought to have some sort of secure repository where they can receive communications of all kinds: email, documents, whatever. And it should be at least as easy to access this repository as it is to walk out your door to your mailbox. That means that, if people need a computer and Internet connection to access it, they must be provided with one; their hardware, software, and network connection must work at least as reliably as mail delivery does.
  - nitrogen 16y ago
    I'd rather not have yet another way for the government to track my every move and communication. I do like the concept of having a single destination for communication, regardless of my location, but I don't want the (US) government involved. What I'd really like is a way to receive physical mail at a single "address" no matter where I am. If I'm traveling, living in a place temporarily for short-term work, studying, whatever, I don't want to have to keep updating my mailing address with companies and a dozen government agencies.
kbutler 16y ago
Does the Federal Reserve turn a profit? Yes. $45 billion in 2009: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/11/AR2010011103892.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01... Earnings beyond the cost of operations are returned to the US Treasury: http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm#6 http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm#6 kb
- rwl 16y ago
  This is interesting -- I didn't know the Federal Reserve was allowed to turn a profit. I guess it makes sense, though. My instinct is: well, that's great! (Proof that a government entity can be run profitably!) But even if it couldn't make a profit, that wouldn't be an argument for not having a central bank, or for making drastic cuts to its operations in order to make it profitable. The point is that we have these institutions because we need them to serve a certain function, whether or not they can do so profitably.
  - noelchurchill 16y ago
    The Fed is not a government entity. It's a private for profit company.
    - anonymous246 16y ago
      Somebody downvoted you instead of replying. I upvoted, but looks like the Stackoverflow-like algo pg has didn't count my vote. Or the person who downvoted you has a posse. Anyway, here's a web page with an extract from the US federal court: http://www.healthfreedom.info/Federal_Reserve_Fraud.htm http://www.healthfreedom.info/Federal_Reserve_Fraud.htm "Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA, but are independent, privately-owned and locally controlled corporations." [Lewis vs. U.S., 680 F. 2d 1239, 1241]" See also: http://seekingalpha.com/article/125092-grand-illusion-the-federal-reserve-part-1 http://seekingalpha.com/article/125092-grand-illusion-the-fe...
grandalf 16y ago
It's essential for anyone to be able to send direct mail to a Rural Route address for $0.20? If anyone mildly sophisticated wanted to tamper with postal mail it would be trivial to do so. Most important mail these days is sent via Fedex, DHL, and UPS.
- rwl 16y ago
  The price isn't that important, as long as it's not so high that it excludes people from using the mail system (when's the last time you tried to send a letter via Fedex? I bet it didn't cost $0.20). The important thing is that we have a public system, accessible to everyone, for distributing important communications -- things like absentee ballots, jury summons, tax forms, etc. Any citizen with a stable physical location should be reachable with this system, and it should be controlled by a public entity, not a private one that can decide not to deliver mail if it's not profitable.
  - grandalf 16y ago
    Actually, any important letter I have to send is sent with FedEx. They provide fast, predictable delivery, tracking numbers, signature requirement, saturday delivery, etc. Letters don't cost $0.20 to send via the USPS either, unless you're a bulk marketer who is offered a huge discount to send people garbage. I have tried to opt out of all the unsolicited mail (coupons, flyers, magazines, etc.) and they keep sending it. It all (thankfully) gets recycled but it's a huge waste. I also don't buy the argument that rural route customers should pay the same price for mail as anyone else. If you live in a rural area you get some benefits (cheaper land) and you should have to pay extra for infrastructure that is not efficiently offered when houses are 3 miles apart.
    - nitrogen 16y ago
      What's with the frequent anti-rural sentiment on HN? Rural residents depend on the mail far more than anyone else, as they are less likely to have access to alternate services. Extremely isolated locations don't have to-the-door delivery of mail, but a row of mailboxes on the road for all the houses in the area. I doubt it's as unprofitable as you seem to think. Flat-rate delivery of mail is a necessary social equalizer. It would be entirely unfair to deny rural residents access to communication. In many cases they are the ones growing the food we eat, mining the coal that powers our PCs, etc. In exchange for providing valuable services in places we don't want to live, we should isolate them further?

by rwl 16y ago

gojomo 16y ago

For one thing, we don't, as citizens, all have an official electronic mail box. A $8.5 billion subsidy to cover this last year's losses could have bought 20 million Americans iPads/netbooks. If we're going to subsidize universal service, let's do it in a modern fashion. And let's focus on those people and regions that would get left out otherwise. There's no need to federalize things everywhere -- including in cities where competing alternatives would be eager to operate -- to cover a few edge cases for poor and rural delivery.

rwl 16y ago
A $8.5 billion subsidy to cover this last year's losses could have bought 20 million Americans iPads/netbooks. What, exactly, would that achieve? Not the same function that the USPS does. Sure, 20 million more people would have a device, but they wouldn't have a "U.S. Email address" in the same way that they have a "U.S. Mail address". They would just have a way to use someone else's privately-owned infrastructure. Who knows how long that would last, or how reliable it would be? If we're going to subsidize universal service, let's do it in a modern fashion. I agree. But that means what we should be doing is building public infrastructure for new forms of communication, not farming it out to private infrastructure (which decides whether or not to deliver mail, first and foremost, on the basis of whether it is profitable) in order to save a buck. Let's have a national electronic service that: - provides an "address" [1] to every citizen, with a directory that allows people to find each other - provides guaranteed, reliable, on-time delivery at minimal cost to the sender - guarantees secure communications - provides a channel for official communications, from voting to tax forms to jury duty summons [1] I'm not sure if "address" is the right metaphor or not. Certainly, a mere "government email address" wouldn't be sufficient. The basic point is that every individual citizen ought to have some sort of secure repository where they can receive communications of all kinds: email, documents, whatever. And it should be at least as easy to access this repository as it is to walk out your door to your mailbox. That means that, if people need a computer and Internet connection to access it, they must be provided with one; their hardware, software, and network connection must work at least as reliably as mail delivery does.
- nitrogen 16y ago
  I'd rather not have yet another way for the government to track my every move and communication. I do like the concept of having a single destination for communication, regardless of my location, but I don't want the (US) government involved. What I'd really like is a way to receive physical mail at a single "address" no matter where I am. If I'm traveling, living in a place temporarily for short-term work, studying, whatever, I don't want to have to keep updating my mailing address with companies and a dozen government agencies.

kbutler 16y ago

Does the Federal Reserve turn a profit? Yes. $45 billion in 2009: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/11/AR2010011103892.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01... Earnings beyond the cost of operations are returned to the US Treasury: http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm#6 http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm#6 kb

rwl 16y ago
This is interesting -- I didn't know the Federal Reserve was allowed to turn a profit. I guess it makes sense, though. My instinct is: well, that's great! (Proof that a government entity can be run profitably!) But even if it couldn't make a profit, that wouldn't be an argument for not having a central bank, or for making drastic cuts to its operations in order to make it profitable. The point is that we have these institutions because we need them to serve a certain function, whether or not they can do so profitably.
- noelchurchill 16y ago
  The Fed is not a government entity. It's a private for profit company.
  - anonymous246 16y ago
    Somebody downvoted you instead of replying. I upvoted, but looks like the Stackoverflow-like algo pg has didn't count my vote. Or the person who downvoted you has a posse. Anyway, here's a web page with an extract from the US federal court: http://www.healthfreedom.info/Federal_Reserve_Fraud.htm http://www.healthfreedom.info/Federal_Reserve_Fraud.htm "Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA, but are independent, privately-owned and locally controlled corporations." [Lewis vs. U.S., 680 F. 2d 1239, 1241]" See also: http://seekingalpha.com/article/125092-grand-illusion-the-federal-reserve-part-1 http://seekingalpha.com/article/125092-grand-illusion-the-fe...

grandalf 16y ago

It's essential for anyone to be able to send direct mail to a Rural Route address for $0.20? If anyone mildly sophisticated wanted to tamper with postal mail it would be trivial to do so. Most important mail these days is sent via Fedex, DHL, and UPS.

rwl 16y ago
The price isn't that important, as long as it's not so high that it excludes people from using the mail system (when's the last time you tried to send a letter via Fedex? I bet it didn't cost $0.20). The important thing is that we have a public system, accessible to everyone, for distributing important communications -- things like absentee ballots, jury summons, tax forms, etc. Any citizen with a stable physical location should be reachable with this system, and it should be controlled by a public entity, not a private one that can decide not to deliver mail if it's not profitable.
- grandalf 16y ago
  Actually, any important letter I have to send is sent with FedEx. They provide fast, predictable delivery, tracking numbers, signature requirement, saturday delivery, etc. Letters don't cost $0.20 to send via the USPS either, unless you're a bulk marketer who is offered a huge discount to send people garbage. I have tried to opt out of all the unsolicited mail (coupons, flyers, magazines, etc.) and they keep sending it. It all (thankfully) gets recycled but it's a huge waste. I also don't buy the argument that rural route customers should pay the same price for mail as anyone else. If you live in a rural area you get some benefits (cheaper land) and you should have to pay extra for infrastructure that is not efficiently offered when houses are 3 miles apart.
  - nitrogen 16y ago
    What's with the frequent anti-rural sentiment on HN? Rural residents depend on the mail far more than anyone else, as they are less likely to have access to alternate services. Extremely isolated locations don't have to-the-door delivery of mail, but a row of mailboxes on the road for all the houses in the area. I doubt it's as unprofitable as you seem to think. Flat-rate delivery of mail is a necessary social equalizer. It would be entirely unfair to deny rural residents access to communication. In many cases they are the ones growing the food we eat, mining the coal that powers our PCs, etc. In exchange for providing valuable services in places we don't want to live, we should isolate them further?