3 ms·

The only reason FedEx and UPS don't deliver mails is because it's illegal to compete with the mail service.

dalke 15y ago
Yeah, stupid Constitution for giving Congress monopoly power over the mail system. Silly also that we require universal postal service at affordable rates in exchange for that monopoly.
- dantheman 15y ago
  I think you're reading into my comment, I was merely stating why UPS and FedEX don't deliver mail and why comparisons between them and USPS are difficult to do. Though for completeness there have been people who've competed with USPS in the past, Lysander Spooner is a notable one.
- Codayus 15y ago
  While it often seems to surprise Americans, there's nothing about a universal postal service - or even universal postal service - that requires granting anyone a monopoly. Many countries have allowed competition in the postal market and/or privatized their postal service. The results have mostly been very positive. Really, it's a bit like suggesting that the only way we can be sure every American can purchase food is to grant a Federal Food Service a monopoly on all retail food sales. It just isn't so. Basically, there are three ways you can provide universal service: 1) Split the country up into regions, and reverse auction contracts to provide service; contracts require mail interchange with other contractors. Not common in the postal sector, but widely used elsewhere. 2) Designate one entity as the universal service provider. Could be state owned (as in NZ) or floated on the stock exchange (as in Germany). Since providing universal service is expensive, the government provides a subsidy to cover the cost. Accounts are reviewed periodically to ensure the subsidy is in-line with costs, and that value is being obtained for the money. 3) Designate one entity as the universal service provider. Don't directly subsidize them, but instead grant them monopolies on random services which you fondly hope will provide revenue streams broadly similar to what universal service actually costs. Method 3 has a few disadvantages:. It's unfair, it's expensive, it's opaque, and it doesn't actually work. For example, at some point, the monopoly revenue will be too high. With nothing else to do with the cash, it'll get spent on lavish infrastructure, marble floors, and gold-plated pensions. Later, changing market conditions means the monopoly revenue falls, and the postal service goes bankrupt. Insanity.

dalke 15y ago

Yeah, stupid Constitution for giving Congress monopoly power over the mail system. Silly also that we require universal postal service at affordable rates in exchange for that monopoly.

dantheman 15y ago
I think you're reading into my comment, I was merely stating why UPS and FedEX don't deliver mail and why comparisons between them and USPS are difficult to do. Though for completeness there have been people who've competed with USPS in the past, Lysander Spooner is a notable one.
Codayus 15y ago
While it often seems to surprise Americans, there's nothing about a universal postal service - or even universal postal service - that requires granting anyone a monopoly. Many countries have allowed competition in the postal market and/or privatized their postal service. The results have mostly been very positive. Really, it's a bit like suggesting that the only way we can be sure every American can purchase food is to grant a Federal Food Service a monopoly on all retail food sales. It just isn't so. Basically, there are three ways you can provide universal service: 1) Split the country up into regions, and reverse auction contracts to provide service; contracts require mail interchange with other contractors. Not common in the postal sector, but widely used elsewhere. 2) Designate one entity as the universal service provider. Could be state owned (as in NZ) or floated on the stock exchange (as in Germany). Since providing universal service is expensive, the government provides a subsidy to cover the cost. Accounts are reviewed periodically to ensure the subsidy is in-line with costs, and that value is being obtained for the money. 3) Designate one entity as the universal service provider. Don't directly subsidize them, but instead grant them monopolies on random services which you fondly hope will provide revenue streams broadly similar to what universal service actually costs. Method 3 has a few disadvantages:. It's unfair, it's expensive, it's opaque, and it doesn't actually work. For example, at some point, the monopoly revenue will be too high. With nothing else to do with the cash, it'll get spent on lavish infrastructure, marble floors, and gold-plated pensions. Later, changing market conditions means the monopoly revenue falls, and the postal service goes bankrupt. Insanity.