3 ms·
This is weird because the postal union was the one wonky, deep in the weeds policy where even the globalist agreed with the populist that something needed to be
by ummwhat 7y ago
This is weird because the postal union was the one wonky, deep in the weeds policy where even the globalist agreed with the populist that something needed to be done. Way I see it there were 3 options.
1. Use international institutions like the WTO and UN to affect a change or enact a legal, narrow set of tarifs on bad actors without putting the wider, generally beneficial system at risk.
2. Start subsidizing our own postal service. China does it because it's an economic multiplier that benefits a wide segment of society. Why not copy it.
3. Burn the postal union treaty to the ground.
Trump picked 3 and has now pivoted to 1. I personally would have picked 2 but I don't think any of these options are crazy. 3 sucked but wasn't outrageous IMO.
- aivisol 7y agoSubsidizing own postal service would mean paying it with tax dollars. Why would those who never use this service should pay for those who use it more? Besides that (and its my own observation only) I have noticed that subsidies usually distort market and make service/product less sustainable and competitive.
- ummwhat 7y agoSame reason I'm ok with the government building a road even though I don't personally drive. It's an economic multiplier. It increases opportunity overall by facilitating more transactions than were previously possible, and the net economic growth can flow back to me even though I didn't directly use it. I'm not universally in favor of subsidies, just in certain specific instances where the economic multiplier is high and a large fraction of the public benefits directly (usually infrastructure).
- Spivak 7y agoWhich is why I'm so surprised that people dislike farm subsidies so much since every single person in the US benefits from cheap corn being available.
- Spivak 7y agoThey absolutely distort the market! That's the point if you're a government trying to affect your economy. The idea is that everyone collectively paying $X for cheap shipping to be available creates more than $X in economic value. Someone who doesn't actually take advantage of the cheap shipping directly is 100% benefiting from the businesses they frequent that do. An argument that might be more familiar in our industry: Why do we spend 10M on advertising when we could use that money to make our product cheaper? Because that 10M spent brings in 12M in revenue.
- thedogeye 7y agoThe post office lost $3.9B in 2018. We are subsidizing it already.