4 ms·

The idea that it’s purely narcissistic is without merit. Privatization is about fostering competition to ensure better products are created. Just because the U

The idea that it’s purely narcissistic is without merit. Privatization is about fostering competition to ensure better products are created. Just because the USPS works as is does not mean it couldn’t be better. This is a classic “I like things the way they are” problem. Where the other possibilities are unknown and inexperienced and so are not given equal weight to a decision. I don’t particularly care whether the postal service is privatized or not. But the more we keep failing at things like public schools the more I’m inclined to align with privatization. Everything can be regulated to a degree that requires basic service levels. But you can’t fake incentive. What is the USPS incentive to do better?

faitswulff 6y ago
What is private industry's incentive to do better?
- missedthecue 6y ago
  If you don't produce desirable results for your customer you go out of business?
  - faitswulff 6y ago
    And if the businesses in question are rent-seeking oligopolies?
    - missedthecue 6y ago
      They aren't in any case. Total red herring
conception 6y ago
Public schooling has had a tremendous positive effect on the US and countries world wide. If it is failing, which it is not, it is for the same political reasons as the USPS is “failing”, which it is not.
- missedthecue 6y ago
  How do you define failing?
- isthispermanent 6y ago
  It’s failing for huge swaths of the population that live in bad geographies. You’d be shocked at the disparity between one public school and the next. You’d be even more shocked by the percentage of people who can’t do percentages. Now some of that is a familial issue but not all of it. Has public schooling been a net positive? Oh wow yes, by many miles. Could it be better? By many miles, yes. Saying it could be better does not negate past contributions.
wishinghand 6y ago
> ...I’m inclined to align with privatization. Everything can be regulated to a degree that requires basic service levels. When companies get big enough to serve the entire nation, a few million USD in fines won't make them stop. > But you can’t fake incentive. What is the USPS incentive to do better? It's an intrinsic goal, set by those who truly do want to serve better. You can hire for that. USPS would have an easier time hiring the right people if they weren't hamstrung by billionaires weakening their foundations.
- isthispermanent 6y ago
  > USPS would have an easier time hiring the right people if they weren't hamstrung by billionaires weakening their foundations True. Intentional dismantling of an organization that can’t protect itself seems slightly out of bounds. However, that’s exactly what you would do in the private sector. But regardless, people are driven by incentive. Appealing to humans with the notion of doing good but not being paid market price (through monetary or other tangible means) is ensuring that you will not attract top talent. You can trace it all the way back down through the evolutionary rabbit hole: incentive = security = procreation = genes that carry on. That’s our basic human programming. We should ensure access to a level playing field but we shouldn’t ignore our basic nature when constructing it.
bouchard 6y ago
What you fail to take into account is that with a privatized postal service, non-profitable routes will stopped being serviced even if it's essential to the population.
- isthispermanent 6y ago
  I take that as a possibility, but not a given. And even if it is a given there’s nothing to say a better, more efficient system couldn’t be employed. For example, current day drones would excel at rural mail delivery. Bread and butter business opportunity for someone so inclined. Just because one method is removed does not mean the product ceases to exist. If it’s valuable a provider will find it.
lostlogin 6y ago
How do you apply this logic to US healthcare? Regulation doesn’t seem to have helped with costs, accessibility and population health. Regulation doesn’t seem to have helped in terms of bang for buck.
tclancy 6y ago
This completely ignores things like the Tragedy of the Commons. Similarly, it ignores the idea some things may be a fundamental right. If the mail is completely privatized, who makes sure I can mail things at all regardless of my wealth? And some day you may ask why wealth should be a barrier to entry to anything.
- isthispermanent 6y ago
  I don’t think wealth should ever be a barrier to entry for anything. The idea of privatization and inclusion are not mutually exclusive.
  - harimau777 6y ago
    That hasn't been my observation. Can you explain more how you envision this working?
thesagan 6y ago
When there's competition to foster. Unfortunately, the pendulum has been swinging towards market concentration, duopolies, and even monopolies. See: Health insurance industry Also see: Internet service providers Also also see: Publishing
- isthispermanent 6y ago
  The healthcare industry is a mix of players of all sizes. There are pros and cons to what we have. We do have the absolute cutting edge treatments in the world here. However it does seem like what some have access to is paid for by those who don’t receive it. We need to do better on healthcare. However I think we can all agree, the complexities of healthcare are far from those of the postal service. ISPs are constantly under threat of new players, see SpaceX. The only way they can stick around is by adding value to their products. When was the last time you couldn’t get on the internet by two or more means? Cell phone and WiFi are almost always. Publishing in particular though, this one doesn’t hold water. At no point in history has it ever been 1) easier to publish but also 2) easier to gain a audience. Publishing is fully democratized due to permissionless platforms enabled via the internet.
bmitc 6y ago
> The idea that it’s purely narcissistic is without merit. Privatization is about fostering competition to ensure better products are created. This fostering competition business is often a false narrative. If the USPS was dissolved, there would be hardly anything compelling UPS or FedEx to pick up its services. If they did, they'd be at an increased cost to consumers. > Just because the USPS works as is does not mean it couldn’t be better. In my original comment, I explicitly said "The USPS could be improved but struggles primarily due to active efforts to kill it off. But it's a wonderful idea of a service that definitely should exist and be improved." The problem is that the USPS is in a chokehold by politicians, starving it of funds and increasing its costs, yelling at it "why can't you do better?" Talk about "fair" competition. Of course public services should be improved. > But the more we keep failing at things like public schools the more I’m inclined to align with privatization. As I mentioned in my original comment, we should focus on improving these things. Public schools are poor for a variety of reasons, primarily political, and their problems are not inherent to their existence as a public service. My mom was a teacher for decades, as were her family members. I've seen why schools struggle, and it's not simply because they're a public service. > But you can’t fake incentive. What is the USPS incentive to do better? What is UPS or FedEx's or any other company's incentive to do better? More capital and more money. Their incentive isn't to make people's lives better. It's to earn more money. It just so happens that these can overlap, but company's have few incentives to provide services to people. That's the entire point of public services. It's because there isn't an incentive for companies to provide them in a way that's beneficial and cost effective for the common people.

faitswulff 6y ago

What is private industry's incentive to do better?

missedthecue 6y ago
If you don't produce desirable results for your customer you go out of business?
- faitswulff 6y ago
  And if the businesses in question are rent-seeking oligopolies?
  - missedthecue 6y ago
    They aren't in any case. Total red herring

conception 6y ago

Public schooling has had a tremendous positive effect on the US and countries world wide. If it is failing, which it is not, it is for the same political reasons as the USPS is “failing”, which it is not.

missedthecue 6y ago
How do you define failing?
isthispermanent 6y ago
It’s failing for huge swaths of the population that live in bad geographies. You’d be shocked at the disparity between one public school and the next. You’d be even more shocked by the percentage of people who can’t do percentages. Now some of that is a familial issue but not all of it. Has public schooling been a net positive? Oh wow yes, by many miles. Could it be better? By many miles, yes. Saying it could be better does not negate past contributions.

wishinghand 6y ago

> ...I’m inclined to align with privatization. Everything can be regulated to a degree that requires basic service levels. When companies get big enough to serve the entire nation, a few million USD in fines won't make them stop. > But you can’t fake incentive. What is the USPS incentive to do better? It's an intrinsic goal, set by those who truly do want to serve better. You can hire for that. USPS would have an easier time hiring the right people if they weren't hamstrung by billionaires weakening their foundations.

isthispermanent 6y ago
> USPS would have an easier time hiring the right people if they weren't hamstrung by billionaires weakening their foundations True. Intentional dismantling of an organization that can’t protect itself seems slightly out of bounds. However, that’s exactly what you would do in the private sector. But regardless, people are driven by incentive. Appealing to humans with the notion of doing good but not being paid market price (through monetary or other tangible means) is ensuring that you will not attract top talent. You can trace it all the way back down through the evolutionary rabbit hole: incentive = security = procreation = genes that carry on. That’s our basic human programming. We should ensure access to a level playing field but we shouldn’t ignore our basic nature when constructing it.

bouchard 6y ago

What you fail to take into account is that with a privatized postal service, non-profitable routes will stopped being serviced even if it's essential to the population.

isthispermanent 6y ago
I take that as a possibility, but not a given. And even if it is a given there’s nothing to say a better, more efficient system couldn’t be employed. For example, current day drones would excel at rural mail delivery. Bread and butter business opportunity for someone so inclined. Just because one method is removed does not mean the product ceases to exist. If it’s valuable a provider will find it.

lostlogin 6y ago

How do you apply this logic to US healthcare? Regulation doesn’t seem to have helped with costs, accessibility and population health. Regulation doesn’t seem to have helped in terms of bang for buck.

tclancy 6y ago

This completely ignores things like the Tragedy of the Commons. Similarly, it ignores the idea some things may be a fundamental right. If the mail is completely privatized, who makes sure I can mail things at all regardless of my wealth? And some day you may ask why wealth should be a barrier to entry to anything.

isthispermanent 6y ago
I don’t think wealth should ever be a barrier to entry for anything. The idea of privatization and inclusion are not mutually exclusive.
- harimau777 6y ago
  That hasn't been my observation. Can you explain more how you envision this working?

thesagan 6y ago

When there's competition to foster. Unfortunately, the pendulum has been swinging towards market concentration, duopolies, and even monopolies. See: Health insurance industry Also see: Internet service providers Also also see: Publishing

isthispermanent 6y ago
The healthcare industry is a mix of players of all sizes. There are pros and cons to what we have. We do have the absolute cutting edge treatments in the world here. However it does seem like what some have access to is paid for by those who don’t receive it. We need to do better on healthcare. However I think we can all agree, the complexities of healthcare are far from those of the postal service. ISPs are constantly under threat of new players, see SpaceX. The only way they can stick around is by adding value to their products. When was the last time you couldn’t get on the internet by two or more means? Cell phone and WiFi are almost always. Publishing in particular though, this one doesn’t hold water. At no point in history has it ever been 1) easier to publish but also 2) easier to gain a audience. Publishing is fully democratized due to permissionless platforms enabled via the internet.

bmitc 6y ago

> The idea that it’s purely narcissistic is without merit. Privatization is about fostering competition to ensure better products are created. This fostering competition business is often a false narrative. If the USPS was dissolved, there would be hardly anything compelling UPS or FedEx to pick up its services. If they did, they'd be at an increased cost to consumers. > Just because the USPS works as is does not mean it couldn’t be better. In my original comment, I explicitly said "The USPS could be improved but struggles primarily due to active efforts to kill it off. But it's a wonderful idea of a service that definitely should exist and be improved." The problem is that the USPS is in a chokehold by politicians, starving it of funds and increasing its costs, yelling at it "why can't you do better?" Talk about "fair" competition. Of course public services should be improved. > But the more we keep failing at things like public schools the more I’m inclined to align with privatization. As I mentioned in my original comment, we should focus on improving these things. Public schools are poor for a variety of reasons, primarily political, and their problems are not inherent to their existence as a public service. My mom was a teacher for decades, as were her family members. I've seen why schools struggle, and it's not simply because they're a public service. > But you can’t fake incentive. What is the USPS incentive to do better? What is UPS or FedEx's or any other company's incentive to do better? More capital and more money. Their incentive isn't to make people's lives better. It's to earn more money. It just so happens that these can overlap, but company's have few incentives to provide services to people. That's the entire point of public services. It's because there isn't an incentive for companies to provide them in a way that's beneficial and cost effective for the common people.