5 ms·

Nothing in the constitution indicates what kind of parcels the mail service should deliver. They already refuse to deliver certain types of parcels - are they v

Nothing in the constitution indicates what kind of parcels the mail service should deliver. They already refuse to deliver certain types of parcels - are they violating the constitution by doing so?

lovich 4y ago
Who cares? Engage with the argument that it’s self inflicted losses. If it’s a service for citizens then by definition it cannot have losses because it is _not_ a business. Even applying the idea of profit and loss to the post office is using a paradigm against it that does not fit the reason for its creation
- eru 4y ago
  > Even applying the idea of profit and loss to the post office is using a paradigm against it that does not fit the reason for its creation See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_Post https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_Post Postal systems were initially brought under government control as a cash cow.
  - eru 4y ago
    P.S. See also Wikipedia on the Postal Clause: > The Postal Clause was added to the Constitution to facilitate interstate communication as well as to create a source of revenue for the early United States. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Clause
  - lovich 4y ago
    Responding to this a bit late, but your link is showing me a system that involves a fixed rate for a service if I’m interpreting this correctly? I would need to be given some sort of argument that this was a cash cow and not a service that is absorbing a massive amount of risk by giving a static price in the face of a constantly changing business world. Every company I’ve worked at has been massively adverse to any risk because that can scale to infinite. Offering a service for a static price sounds exactly like something that is ignoring the idea of profit and loss as a metric to compare itself to in exchange for making sure everyone has access to the service
    - eru 4y ago
      See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32260699 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32260699 for the American situation. > Offering a service for a static price sounds exactly like something that is ignoring the idea of profit and loss as a metric to compare itself to in exchange for making sure everyone has access to the service[.] The Penny Post was a profit driven private enterprise. There might or might not have been a more profitable pricing strategy for them, I don't know. Neither me nor business people have perfect knowledge (and don't need it to make markets work). Compare to how Coca Cola cost a Nickel for 70 years. See eg https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/11/15/165143816/why-coke-cost-a-nickel-for-70-years https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/11/15/165143816/why-... > Every company I’ve worked at has been massively adverse to any risk because that can scale to infinite. Keep in mind that prices under a gold or silver standard were more stable in the long run than under modern-day 2% inflation targeting. (The short run was not necessarily as stable as today.) > I would need to be given some sort of argument that this was a cash cow [...] How about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Penny_Post#Takeover_of_Penny_Post https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Penny_Post#Takeover_of_... ? > [...] and not a service that is absorbing a massive amount of risk by giving a static price in the face of a constantly changing business world. Huh? It's not like the penny post would have been subject to sudden denial of service attacks from the Internet.. They always had the option of raising prices or turning away customers, in case they had temporarily too much demand or their costs would rise.

Nothing in the constitution indicates what kind of parcels the mail service should deliver. They already refuse to deliver certain types of parcels - are they violating the constitution by doing so?

lovich 4y ago

Who cares? Engage with the argument that it’s self inflicted losses. If it’s a service for citizens then by definition it cannot have losses because it is _not_ a business. Even applying the idea of profit and loss to the post office is using a paradigm against it that does not fit the reason for its creation

eru 4y ago
> Even applying the idea of profit and loss to the post office is using a paradigm against it that does not fit the reason for its creation See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_Post https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_Post Postal systems were initially brought under government control as a cash cow.
- eru 4y ago
  P.S. See also Wikipedia on the Postal Clause: > The Postal Clause was added to the Constitution to facilitate interstate communication as well as to create a source of revenue for the early United States. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Clause
- lovich 4y ago
  Responding to this a bit late, but your link is showing me a system that involves a fixed rate for a service if I’m interpreting this correctly? I would need to be given some sort of argument that this was a cash cow and not a service that is absorbing a massive amount of risk by giving a static price in the face of a constantly changing business world. Every company I’ve worked at has been massively adverse to any risk because that can scale to infinite. Offering a service for a static price sounds exactly like something that is ignoring the idea of profit and loss as a metric to compare itself to in exchange for making sure everyone has access to the service
  - eru 4y ago
    See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32260699 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32260699 for the American situation. > Offering a service for a static price sounds exactly like something that is ignoring the idea of profit and loss as a metric to compare itself to in exchange for making sure everyone has access to the service[.] The Penny Post was a profit driven private enterprise. There might or might not have been a more profitable pricing strategy for them, I don't know. Neither me nor business people have perfect knowledge (and don't need it to make markets work). Compare to how Coca Cola cost a Nickel for 70 years. See eg https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/11/15/165143816/why-coke-cost-a-nickel-for-70-years https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/11/15/165143816/why-... > Every company I’ve worked at has been massively adverse to any risk because that can scale to infinite. Keep in mind that prices under a gold or silver standard were more stable in the long run than under modern-day 2% inflation targeting. (The short run was not necessarily as stable as today.) > I would need to be given some sort of argument that this was a cash cow [...] How about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Penny_Post#Takeover_of_Penny_Post https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Penny_Post#Takeover_of_... ? > [...] and not a service that is absorbing a massive amount of risk by giving a static price in the face of a constantly changing business world. Huh? It's not like the penny post would have been subject to sudden denial of service attacks from the Internet.. They always had the option of raising prices or turning away customers, in case they had temporarily too much demand or their costs would rise.