5 ms·

> The USPS is an unnatural monopoly which stifles any carrier The USPS is required to deliver to everyone, even when it doesn't make monetary sense to do so. T

> The USPS is an unnatural monopoly which stifles any carrier The USPS is required to deliver to everyone, even when it doesn't make monetary sense to do so. They are an important piece of US infrastructure. They are also incredibly constrained by legislation. They aren't allowed to just raise prices as needed.

GhettoComputers 5y ago
No it’s not. You can do it digitally for official documents, and they mostly deliver spam, and the cost is in your taxes. I’d rather not have them.
- freemint 5y ago
  There are places where it delivers where there is no internet.
  - GhettoComputers 5y ago
    At what cost? What benefit is sending non refusable spam to the ends of the US to anyone besides spammers? You don’t accept spam email do you? Would you support it if it physically existed and your taxes paid for it, including costly methods like sending it to the middle of nowhere?
    - freemint 5y ago
      If governments primary means of working is paper paper must be able to be delivered to every household.
      - GhettoComputers 5y ago
        It isn’t delivered to every household.
    - romwell 5y ago
      Well we kinda want some people to live in the middle of nowhere, because we want to eat and somewhere isn't where farmland is, apparently. Also we kinda want to keep territories like Alaska inhabited because geopolitics. And we kinda want the people living in those places to be able to get their official government documents (driver licenses, court notices, etc). Then there's this idea of voting by mail, which isn't something that should be a privilege, but that's too complex for our discussion. To translate one of the reasons for USPS into words you may understand: you know how two-factor authentication requires that second factor? The USPS provides a means for the gov to get that second factor into the hands of the people. A third party would be a man-in-the-middle. So consiser USPS a part of the government's 2FA infrastructure and messaging system with SLA and proof of delivery. That, unlike your company's authentication infrastructure, happens to pay for itself.
      - GhettoComputers 5y ago
        Not having the USPS won’t affect that. I know someone who lives in Alaska and if you think the USPS delivers there or in a timely manner, you’re mistaken, it’s seasonal and not USPS. The oil payments and other incentives do fine, nobody is there because USPS can spam you. If we could have spam block, I wouldn’t be against it as much, we shouldn’t cut down trees so you can have ads forced into your home without consent. If you think farmers are quaint small independent workers, you’re also mistaken, they’re extremely educated, very high tech, and have Internet, the idea of them being hicks that use mail is outdated by decades. Mail in voting should be skipped over for online voting. We have all the information online and could reach more voters, cities have many more options and rural areas are more easily reached by internet than physical mail. Developing counties skipped home phones for cellular, this is a complex unnecessary step.
- d110af5ccf 5y ago
  Last time I checked there was no official government ISP the was required to provide some baseline of service to every physical address in the country at a reasonable price. And to keep it equivalent you'd only pay for bandwidth used - no flat fee for the hookup itself. The internet is not (yet) a replacement for what the USPS actually is.
  - GhettoComputers 5y ago
    USPS doesn’t serve everywhere either. Where do you think that inefficiency is paid for? Why are taxes subsidizing spammers that you can’t even refuse? What if you only had government email that was full of spam? What if it was physical spam that taxes pays for that follows victims around the US with no way to stop it? Is that what you support?
    - batty_alex 5y ago
      The USPS is self-funded by those periodicals. Your taxes don’t go to USPS
      - GhettoComputers 5y ago
        https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/04/15/postal-service-bailout-congress/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/04/15/postal-se... > The agency is burdened by hundreds of billions of dollars in debt and falling revenue, and Congress and the White House have signaled an unwillingness to grant more funding without major restructuring, lawmakers say. > The law envisioned the Postal Service as a self-sustaining agency whose revenue could cover the expenses associated with an aging workforce involved in a physical occupation: delivering packages and parcels to every address in the country. > Not even two decades later, it can’t. The Postal Service has racked up $160.9 billion in debt from what’s owed prepaying retiree benefits. On top of that, it has many years’ worth of operating deficits, as its top revenue generators no longer covered the costs of delivering the mail. Then why do they need bailouts? Are these bailouts self funding? What money gave them that credit when they were long unsustainable? This is an unnatural monopoly that doesn’t allow competitors and also is a failure who mostly delivers worthless physical spam you cannot escape.

GhettoComputers 5y ago

No it’s not. You can do it digitally for official documents, and they mostly deliver spam, and the cost is in your taxes. I’d rather not have them.

freemint 5y ago
There are places where it delivers where there is no internet.
- GhettoComputers 5y ago
  At what cost? What benefit is sending non refusable spam to the ends of the US to anyone besides spammers? You don’t accept spam email do you? Would you support it if it physically existed and your taxes paid for it, including costly methods like sending it to the middle of nowhere?
  - freemint 5y ago
    If governments primary means of working is paper paper must be able to be delivered to every household.
    - GhettoComputers 5y ago
      It isn’t delivered to every household.
  - romwell 5y ago
    Well we kinda want some people to live in the middle of nowhere, because we want to eat and somewhere isn't where farmland is, apparently. Also we kinda want to keep territories like Alaska inhabited because geopolitics. And we kinda want the people living in those places to be able to get their official government documents (driver licenses, court notices, etc). Then there's this idea of voting by mail, which isn't something that should be a privilege, but that's too complex for our discussion. To translate one of the reasons for USPS into words you may understand: you know how two-factor authentication requires that second factor? The USPS provides a means for the gov to get that second factor into the hands of the people. A third party would be a man-in-the-middle. So consiser USPS a part of the government's 2FA infrastructure and messaging system with SLA and proof of delivery. That, unlike your company's authentication infrastructure, happens to pay for itself.
    - GhettoComputers 5y ago
      Not having the USPS won’t affect that. I know someone who lives in Alaska and if you think the USPS delivers there or in a timely manner, you’re mistaken, it’s seasonal and not USPS. The oil payments and other incentives do fine, nobody is there because USPS can spam you. If we could have spam block, I wouldn’t be against it as much, we shouldn’t cut down trees so you can have ads forced into your home without consent. If you think farmers are quaint small independent workers, you’re also mistaken, they’re extremely educated, very high tech, and have Internet, the idea of them being hicks that use mail is outdated by decades. Mail in voting should be skipped over for online voting. We have all the information online and could reach more voters, cities have many more options and rural areas are more easily reached by internet than physical mail. Developing counties skipped home phones for cellular, this is a complex unnecessary step.
d110af5ccf 5y ago
Last time I checked there was no official government ISP the was required to provide some baseline of service to every physical address in the country at a reasonable price. And to keep it equivalent you'd only pay for bandwidth used - no flat fee for the hookup itself. The internet is not (yet) a replacement for what the USPS actually is.
- GhettoComputers 5y ago
  USPS doesn’t serve everywhere either. Where do you think that inefficiency is paid for? Why are taxes subsidizing spammers that you can’t even refuse? What if you only had government email that was full of spam? What if it was physical spam that taxes pays for that follows victims around the US with no way to stop it? Is that what you support?
  - batty_alex 5y ago
    The USPS is self-funded by those periodicals. Your taxes don’t go to USPS
    - GhettoComputers 5y ago
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/04/15/postal-service-bailout-congress/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/04/15/postal-se... > The agency is burdened by hundreds of billions of dollars in debt and falling revenue, and Congress and the White House have signaled an unwillingness to grant more funding without major restructuring, lawmakers say. > The law envisioned the Postal Service as a self-sustaining agency whose revenue could cover the expenses associated with an aging workforce involved in a physical occupation: delivering packages and parcels to every address in the country. > Not even two decades later, it can’t. The Postal Service has racked up $160.9 billion in debt from what’s owed prepaying retiree benefits. On top of that, it has many years’ worth of operating deficits, as its top revenue generators no longer covered the costs of delivering the mail. Then why do they need bailouts? Are these bailouts self funding? What money gave them that credit when they were long unsustainable? This is an unnatural monopoly that doesn’t allow competitors and also is a failure who mostly delivers worthless physical spam you cannot escape.