3 ms·
It doesn't need to be profitable, but I'd question the idea that the postal service, in particular, should be subsidized. Even without being subsidized, it has
by Marsymars 6y ago
It doesn't need to be profitable, but I'd question the idea that the postal service, in particular, should be subsidized. Even without being subsidized, it has negative externalities that likely aren't being appropriately priced.
- repsilat 6y agoSubsidies to bootstrap into economies of scale can make sense. When you go from filling 0.1 jets or 0.1 containers or 0.1 ships to filling 10.1 jets etc, the costs come down and usage (and utility) go up. See Amazon, and I guess Uber if they ever make it work. Shipping from China is well past that point, though, it's clearly providing perverse incentives and it's good that it's changing.
- ltbarcly3 6y agoIn a world where the mail is the only reliable of communication with the rest of the country, subsidizing the mail was important to improve basic quality of life in more remote, and more poor, parts of the country. This survives to this day in 'media mail' rates, which are heavily subsidized to allow things like books and periodicals to reach rural people. However, in a world where basically 100% of the business of the postal service is junk advertising and amazon packages, subsidizing it is just a payout to business, and I agree that the externalities now greatly outweigh any social benefit.