4 ms·
The Constitution argument merely answers why things are the way that they are, they don't tell us whether the privatized model we see in the UK/Germany/Singapor
by bhupy 6y ago
The Constitution argument merely answers why things are the way that they are, they don't tell us whether the privatized model we see in the UK/Germany/Singapore/Japan is better or worse.
> I'd rather look at how it can do an already pretty good job, better. I know I go to USPS when I ship anything.
When it comes to packages, USPS vs UPS vs FedEx have their pros/cons, but the options mean that most end user's needs are met, whatever they are. The question is why USPS enjoys a state sanctioned monopoly on paper mail specifically.
- runako 6y ago> The question is why USPS enjoys a state sanctioned monopoly on paper mail specifically. I'm curious -- can you link to more detail about this? I've never had trouble sending paper mail through UPS or FedEx. What does the monopoly cover, specifically?
- bhupy 6y agoSure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service#Universal_service_obligation_and_monopoly_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service#U... By law, private corporations aren't allowed to deliver anything to your mailbox, only the USPS can.
- runako 6y agoThanks! On the one hand, it seems unfair. On the other hand, since they don't have any cost-competitive offerings, it seems like a non-issue. I'm a big fan of the USPS, but if it looked like FedEx could help push the letter rate down, I would be a fan of revoking that law. (If a private carrier committed to serving 100% of the USPS coverage area.)
- treis 6y agoThey don't have a cost competitive option because they're not allowed to offer one. They can only deliver "extremely urgent material" by law.