4 ms·

> First, the government does force you to use USPS for some things. The person you were replying to was referring to USPS's upcoming banking services, not thei

by smt88 5y ago

> First, the government does force you to use USPS for some things. The person you were replying to was referring to USPS's upcoming banking services, not their mail services. > we all pay for USPS as taxpayers regardless of whether we use its ancillary services We do not. USPS has its own books and does not receive taxpayer funds directly[1][2]. > To me these are both reasons for the government not to get into this business. If Walmart offers a lower price, whether that's a loss leader or not, it's great for consumers. The problem is not that banking services are unavailable or that Walmart isn't offering them cheaply. It's that Walmart isn't guaranteed to continue to offer them cheaply, and it doesn't serve nearly as many rural places as post offices do. There are post offices absolutely everywhere in the US. The same is not true of Walmarts. > IMHO govt services make sense when private industry can't provide them effectively. That doesn't seem like the case here. 25% of Americans are underserved by banking as of a few years ago, so obviously something is wrong that the free market has not been able to solve[3]. Retail banking is not very profitable, so there isn't much incentive for existing banks to do a good job of it. > I'm guessing they'll just ask for $1b more in funding the following year Again, that's not how USPS works. > And if check cashing seems like a good direction, should the government develop its own reward credit cards? Buy now, pay later? Crypto exchanges? Etc. Ah, so we get to the "what about the slippery slope?!" part of the argument. It's not black and white. We need to assess each case based on real data, not based on theory. No one is saying the government should compete in every industry just because it wants to cash checks for people who have been exploited by payday lenders. We have nationalized libraries and schools, but somehow we haven't slipped down the slope to nationalized grocery stores. I think we'll be OK if USPS offers a very simple service that isn't far off from things they already do (like cashier's checks). 1. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/08/26/how-is-the-u-s-postal-service-governed-and-funded/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/08/26/how-is-th... 2. https://facts.usps.com/top-facts/ https://facts.usps.com/top-facts/ 3. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/08/25percent-of-us-households-are-either-unbanked-or-underbanked.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/08/25percent-of-us-households-a...

lpolovets 5y ago
I've heard that the post office doesn't receive taxpayer funds directly, but tbh even after googling around I don't understand how that works. For example https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/08/26/how-is-the-u-s-postal-service-governed-and-funded/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/08/26/how-is-th... says the post office lost $70b between 2008 and 2018. If it lost that much money but is still around, who covered that $70b? (Honest question. I'd guess taxpayers are where the buck eventually stops?)
- smt88 5y ago
  First, USPS is a viable business, even at current low (set by Congress) prices[1]. That's how it gets its funding[2]. If it has a loss during a certain year, it dips into its cash or sells assets, like any other business. The reason it sometimes looks badly unprofitable is because of an attempt by Republicans to kill it by imposing unique and crushing financial obligations on it that don't apply to any other business[3][4]. By making it look unprofitable, they can argue that it's costing taxpayers money and then propose privatizing it[5]. It's part of a long-term strategize to run government organizations into the ground in order to justify dismantling them. From Barron's: > The USPS loses money, but cash flow has been more stable. That is because as mentioned above, the USPS has some unusual expenses, imposed by Congress, that artificially depress earnings. > In 2006, Congress essentially told the post office to set aside $110 billion over 10 years. That, by our math, is $11 billion a year. The annual free cash flow reported by UPS, for comparison, was about $6.4 billion in 2018. > The requirement hit cash flow until the post office could deal with the expense no longer. Now the Postal Service just records the cost on its books, cutting into the bottom line, but without setting aside any cash.[3] 1. https://news.nd.edu/news/postal-service-losing-money-because-of-congressional-mandate-not-low-prices-expert-says/ https://news.nd.edu/news/postal-service-losing-money-because... 2. https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/usps-funding-crisis-bigger-election-experts-warn-n1237579 https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/usps-funding-crisis... 3. https://www.barrons.com/articles/usps-louis-dejoy-post-office-pelosi-mail-in-ballots-51597687253 https://www.barrons.com/articles/usps-louis-dejoy-post-offic... 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service#Retirement_funding_and_payment_defaults https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service#R... 5. https://www.npr.org/2020/08/16/902977021/the-history-of-political-interference-in-the-usps https://www.npr.org/2020/08/16/902977021/the-history-of-poli...

by smt88 5y ago

lpolovets 5y ago

I've heard that the post office doesn't receive taxpayer funds directly, but tbh even after googling around I don't understand how that works. For example https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/08/26/how-is-the-u-s-postal-service-governed-and-funded/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/08/26/how-is-th... says the post office lost $70b between 2008 and 2018. If it lost that much money but is still around, who covered that $70b? (Honest question. I'd guess taxpayers are where the buck eventually stops?)

smt88 5y ago
First, USPS is a viable business, even at current low (set by Congress) prices[1]. That's how it gets its funding[2]. If it has a loss during a certain year, it dips into its cash or sells assets, like any other business. The reason it sometimes looks badly unprofitable is because of an attempt by Republicans to kill it by imposing unique and crushing financial obligations on it that don't apply to any other business[3][4]. By making it look unprofitable, they can argue that it's costing taxpayers money and then propose privatizing it[5]. It's part of a long-term strategize to run government organizations into the ground in order to justify dismantling them. From Barron's: > The USPS loses money, but cash flow has been more stable. That is because as mentioned above, the USPS has some unusual expenses, imposed by Congress, that artificially depress earnings. > In 2006, Congress essentially told the post office to set aside $110 billion over 10 years. That, by our math, is $11 billion a year. The annual free cash flow reported by UPS, for comparison, was about $6.4 billion in 2018. > The requirement hit cash flow until the post office could deal with the expense no longer. Now the Postal Service just records the cost on its books, cutting into the bottom line, but without setting aside any cash.[3] 1. https://news.nd.edu/news/postal-service-losing-money-because-of-congressional-mandate-not-low-prices-expert-says/ https://news.nd.edu/news/postal-service-losing-money-because... 2. https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/usps-funding-crisis-bigger-election-experts-warn-n1237579 https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/usps-funding-crisis... 3. https://www.barrons.com/articles/usps-louis-dejoy-post-office-pelosi-mail-in-ballots-51597687253 https://www.barrons.com/articles/usps-louis-dejoy-post-offic... 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service#Retirement_funding_and_payment_defaults https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service#R... 5. https://www.npr.org/2020/08/16/902977021/the-history-of-political-interference-in-the-usps https://www.npr.org/2020/08/16/902977021/the-history-of-poli...