4 ms·

As the comment above got downvoted for pointing out the 75 year pension pre-funding requirement, the other framing is to even ASK the USPS to be profitable. It

As the comment above got downvoted for pointing out the 75 year pension pre-funding requirement, the other framing is to even ASK the USPS to be profitable. It's a common attack on public goods: Amtrak & USPS, but would never be asked of the Military or FEMA.

Alupis 6y ago
Neither the Military nor FEMA charge for services and also collect tax payer funds. How could either be "profitable"? Amtrak and USPS both charge for services. It's reasonable to expect them to not hemorrhage billions of dollars annually as well. Further, it can be argued a private business could operate on USPS or Amtrak scale with greater efficiency, cost much much less, and even turn a profit (see SpaceX).
- oblio 6y ago
  1. SpaceX is not a community service. 2. SpaceX, one could argue, is being subsidized majorly by the US government, for strategic reasons. I'm pretty sure it would have gone bankrupt without government intervention. 3. Almost no passenger rail system is fully profitable, in the world. Just like education, it's something you still want because it's a community/public service.
  - Alupis 6y ago
    USPS is not a community service either, in that regard. They charge for their services, so does SpaceX. The assertion was a privately run company could do what USPS does a lot better, for less cost, and likely provide a better end result. SpaceX is an example of that, but there are many others.
- matthewdgreen 6y ago
  > Neither the Military nor FEMA charge for services and also collect tax payer funds Some parts of the military charge consumers, don’t they? For example, military Exchange stores charge for goods, but are also partly subsidized by direct appropriations - and the “profits” go back into military quality-of-life programs. You could decide instead to forgo this charge since as you say the military is not designed to turn a profit, but then you’d have to deal with all the perverse allocation problems and incentives that might pop up if everything in the store was suddenly “free”. Adding a cost to items helps to allocate limited supply (and helps to defray costs to the taxpayer of other military programs), even if the military as an overall organization is intended to direct taxpayer funds into achieving a purpose. Now take that same idea and apply it to “providing government funded public transportation to make a city economically viable”, or “maintain a constitutionally mandated postal service”. Taking money for services is not incompatible with being fundamentally a government-funded service that expends more taxpayer funds than it brings in.

Alupis 6y ago

Neither the Military nor FEMA charge for services and also collect tax payer funds. How could either be "profitable"? Amtrak and USPS both charge for services. It's reasonable to expect them to not hemorrhage billions of dollars annually as well. Further, it can be argued a private business could operate on USPS or Amtrak scale with greater efficiency, cost much much less, and even turn a profit (see SpaceX).

oblio 6y ago
1. SpaceX is not a community service. 2. SpaceX, one could argue, is being subsidized majorly by the US government, for strategic reasons. I'm pretty sure it would have gone bankrupt without government intervention. 3. Almost no passenger rail system is fully profitable, in the world. Just like education, it's something you still want because it's a community/public service.
- Alupis 6y ago
  USPS is not a community service either, in that regard. They charge for their services, so does SpaceX. The assertion was a privately run company could do what USPS does a lot better, for less cost, and likely provide a better end result. SpaceX is an example of that, but there are many others.
matthewdgreen 6y ago
> Neither the Military nor FEMA charge for services and also collect tax payer funds Some parts of the military charge consumers, don’t they? For example, military Exchange stores charge for goods, but are also partly subsidized by direct appropriations - and the “profits” go back into military quality-of-life programs. You could decide instead to forgo this charge since as you say the military is not designed to turn a profit, but then you’d have to deal with all the perverse allocation problems and incentives that might pop up if everything in the store was suddenly “free”. Adding a cost to items helps to allocate limited supply (and helps to defray costs to the taxpayer of other military programs), even if the military as an overall organization is intended to direct taxpayer funds into achieving a purpose. Now take that same idea and apply it to “providing government funded public transportation to make a city economically viable”, or “maintain a constitutionally mandated postal service”. Taking money for services is not incompatible with being fundamentally a government-funded service that expends more taxpayer funds than it brings in.