Why We Should Privatize the Postal Service
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 окт 2017
- What's the best way to make the Post Office faster and cheaper? Pull the government's tendrils out of it and let it loose in the private sector.
---------
Subscribe to our RUclips channel: / reasontv
Like us on Facebook: / reason.magaz. .
Follow us on Twitter: / reason
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes: goo.gl/az3a7a
Reason is the planet's leading source of news, politics, and culture from a libertarian perspective. Go to reason.com for a point of view you won't get from legacy media and old left-right opinion magazines.
---------
Mostly Weekly is hosted by Andrew Heaton with headwriter Sarah Rose Siskind.
Script by Andrew Heaton with writing assistance from Sarah Rose Siskind, Brian Sack, and David Fried
Edited by Austin Bragg and Sarah Rose Siskind.
Produced by Meredith and Austin Bragg.
Theme Song: Frozen by Surfer Blood.
"If it goes out of business, maybe it was never meant to be." I wish we would allow large companies to fail. Cut the billions of dollars in subsidies to huge ass corporations, please!
So true. Lobbying needs to go away, and congress needs to stop voting with their marketshare
@@JayFlowie
Lobbying is a 1st Amendment right.
@@jfangm sorry, I didn't mean get rid of lobbying in the sense of making it illegal. I want it to not be a profitable venture. Since it's our taxes at the core of it
Like General Motors
Yeah, screw people in rural ares where is never profitable to deliver mail!
That one time the UK was more capitalist than America.
railways?
Bring Back 2005 uk postal service is privatised
yet noo one wanted here in the UK every body freaked out
for a day
@Polkadot Ninethousand Um... why wouldn't it be more expensive to deliver mail to different places? It costs different amounts to actually go to different places. Why would bringing a bag of letters during that travel make it cost the same everywhere?
@Polkadot Ninethousand Your scenario is a poor analogy. Delivering any piece of mail has a cost in terms of resources. If you set a constant price for differing resource uses, you waste resources. Because the price is kept the same regardless of where you send the mail, more people send mail to expensive places than they would normally (downward sloping demand curves). These people would find more efficient ways to send the mail or they would lower how often they do send mail. Under your system, there is very little incentive for any person to change their mailing behavior when it becomes inefficient until the entire system fails.
Not only that, when every person pays the same always, then I am paying for other people's mail or they are paying for mine. Let's say I'm a frugal person and I'd like to send a letter to my grandmother for which little resources are required. My price would be lower than the average. However, using the system you are advocating, I get charged more directly as a result of what other people are doing, not how many resources my actions are actually using. It doesn't make sense.
When the government tries to dictate prices like this, they always screw it up, whether it is health insurance in America, regulations that prevent prices going up during natural disasters, the way FEMA prices flood insurance, etc. The national postal system is no different.
Good ol’ USPS, losing the packages you actually need, but making sure your junk mail is delivered right on time 🤣
because of Bush Jr.
@@GiordanDiodato Please explain :)
*shirtless old man*
this is democracy dies
Shut up Karen!
Oh hey, this is relevant again!
Every day
@@punklover99 always
I work for USPS. You try running your business under congressional oversight and see how well you do.
isn't that why we should privatize it?
Ehhem. I think you meant to say "Cold Soulless, Government Monopoly" not Business. It's an honest mistake. I don't mind.
Fuck you pal. If it were up to me I’d have you fired and the postal service abolished.
Lol yeah. I agree to never privatize the post office. Spoken from a USPS employee.
@@alexs5744 Trust me, once you work for the post office, you will change your tone and attitude so fast, your head will spin. 😂
Before privatisation the Royal Mail kept putting up prices and misdelivered mail. After privatisation the Royal Mail still keeps on putting up prices and misdelivering mail.
Letter delivery is going by the wayside, which is to be expected considering the shift to email and things like that.
@@neeltheother2342 Ok, but you can't shift that to package delivery, and many legal notices are REQUIRED to be delivered by mail.
Hmmmmm
Source?
@Jim Marbaz They onlyu opeate at a lose cause congress mandated they pay 75 years of etiement in a bank account so people not even born yet they suppose to be putting the money in a bank account for there retirement. look it up. The usps makes plenty of profit if not for that.
The Post Office has been losing so much money because Congress mandated they fully fund pension plans. Some say this mandate was created to force the Post Office to privatize.
What a crazy idea, fully fund pension systems.
@@gregleuze6657 except it's for the next 75 years
@@GiordanDiodato yeah, they dropped the 75 year limit now and are running below budget now. Unfortunately the timing makes dejoy look good and he has no idea what he's doing unless he's trying to tank the postal service. His new push to save money is get rid of truckers and make a hundred individual employees make the drive and commute instead. Which just makes no sense.
@@JayFlowie it's pretty obvious that he's trying to privatize it.
@@GiordanDiodato yeah I think so too, but I'm usually hesitant to jump from idiot to evil villain. He has absolutely no experience in our environment and it could just be sheer incompetence. But honestly everyone I've talked to is really scared that our career is being dumped on by this guy. Every office is already understaffed and over-burdened (mostly from the influx of online ordering) and he's talking about adding to our workload and cutting staffing further.
legalize weed delivery through the U.S postal service watch how quick it rebounds.
most illegal weed is already delivered through USPS because they're not allowed to open mail without a warrant
@@thebanana401 that's why it's so amazing :D
@@thebanana401 not just weed... literally everyone shipping drugs domestically is using the usps.
They open mail. I know this because I lost money thru them! I was AMAZED when I got my refund INTACT!!!
@Jim Marbaz Uh bud I'm a carrier and I can promise you none of us would report it. I'm a mailman not a cop and snitches get stiches.
I have a post office two miles away but my mail is delivered from the post office 8 miles away. The small town, just south of me, has two post offices. To drive from one to the other takes 2 minutes.
A little further south, there is again two post offices in close proximity. Stand at one and you can see the other.
I see where you went with this, and I can understand your point about inefficiencies. But math is hard and I can't figure out how you drive either 8 miles or 6 miles (depending on which direction both Post Offices are) in 2 minutes. Or are you talking about more than 2 Post Offices? Not to be specific, but how many are there in a given radius around you?
Yeah that needs to stop.
@@TheGreatBender I know a person who gets their mail from the next town over, something like 2 or 3 times the distance from the post office in the town they live in...... and it actually makes perfect sense. The part of town they live in, can become inaccessible from the direction their post office is in, during the winter. So to avoid interruptions in deliveries due to weather, their mail just comes from the opposite direction where they don't have to drive up a long, very steep road.
Just an example of something that seems horribly inefficient on the surface but happens for good reason. And yes this has been the way it is for a long time now and no, the road from town has not gotten any better.
btw, op seems to have mentioned at least 5, possibly 6 post offices. The one he gets mail from which is 8 miles from their house, the one that is 2 miles away from him, the 2 in the next town that are 2 miles from each other and the 2 in the town further south than that one. (assuming that the one 8 miles away from op's house is not one of the others being mentioned brings the total to 6)
Not to mention that the mail being delivered to you is sectioned away by your ZIP code. So however your district has lined your neighborhood into a zip code determines who you get your mail from.
""In 2006, Congress passed a law that imposed extraordinary costs on the U.S. Postal Service. The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) required the USPS to create a $72 billion fund to pay for the cost of its post-retirement health care costs, 75 years into the future. This burden applies to no other federal agency or private corporation.
If the costs of this retiree health care mandate were removed from the USPS financial statements, the Post Office would have reported operating profits in each of the last six years. This extraordinary mandate created a financial “crisis” that has been used to justify harmful service cuts and even calls for postal privatization. Additional cuts in service and privatization would be devastating for millions of postal workers and customers.
In its December 2018 report, President Trump’s Task Force on the United States Postal Service reaffirmed current rules related to postal retiree health benefits, calling it “part of a mandate for postal self-sustainability.” However, the Task Force also recognized that the aggressive and accelerated timetable for funding the mandate has proved unworkable. They call for past deficits to be “restructured with the payments re-amortized with new actuarial calculation based on the population of employees at or near retirement age.”
While this would have a modest positive effect by spreading payments over a longer period of time, it does little to address the underlying problem caused by USPS being burdened with a mandate that no other federal agency or private corporation faces. A new Institute for Policy Studies report makes the following recommendations.
A Better Path Toward Sustainability... etc etc etc"
ips-dc.org/how-congress-manufactured-a-postal-crisis-and-how-to-fix-it/
Sounds like USPS should be privatized then; that would eliminate the costly pension prefunding requirement.
@@holycrapchris Or congress could just remove it
@@buffalobill8 it was be the same as what it was before....the USPS would add in the retirement pension as needed. That's how it was being done before Congress intervened and that's how most other businesses run their retirement plans
@UsirRaMaroon Sounds like you only care about it being privatized not the creation of this artificial crisis.
@@olstar18 Well when most of the work being done by the post office is delivering junk, why shouldn't they pay some consequences for wasting tax payer money?
But whose gonna deliver my monthly issue of Reason?
Andrew Heaton, personally
Personally Andrew Heaton?
holidayhouse03 Wow, ONE MINUTE IN, and this video is shown its DISHONESTY.
Hey, REASON, you’re not supposed to B.S. your way out of history!
You should have said “since 2006...” when Congress PASSED a poison bill that FORCED employees to fund the $80 BILLION DOLLAR coffers WHEN the Postal Service becomes Privatized.
Remember the Saturday Mail fiasco?
Exactly lmao
holidayhouse03 reason
Hey Reason, what happened in 2006/07 that started causing the USPS to stop making a profit? 🤔
Postal Accountability and Enhancement act. It fucked up everything, and you can thank that moron George Bush, and Obama for not even trying to repeal this law.
me ow wait, what was the Postal Accountability act about? Like what was it attempting (but failing apparently 😂) to accomplish?
me ow sorry, I just meant to ask the basics of what it did, but I made it really complicated 😂
@@aidenromine1000 The whole thing was supposed to streamline the USPS's retirement pension account while also making sure it couldn't raise prices and/or make a profit. There were a bunch of small things in there like the process for realising new designs for stamps but the first two things were definitely the main things about the bill. The worst part is that this bill had bi-partisan support, and even progressive voices like Bernie Sanders signed the bill, which surprised me because I know he and many other democrats want to repeal this law. Either way, there's a reason that the USPS went from making a small profit in 2005-2006 to losing millions right after the bill was passed. The bill also included other provisions which may have helped the post office but overall, it's estimated that over 70% of USPS's losses were caused by this bill.
_PAEA was the first major overhaul of the United States Postal Service (USPS) since 1970.[5] It reorganized the Postal Rate Commission, compelled the USPS to pay in advance for the health and retirement benefits of all of its employees for at least 50 years,[4] and stipulated that the price of postage could not increase faster than the rate of inflation._
What could possibly go wrong? 🤔
Where's the Big Money comment?
2:18, banks charge me $30 if I'am even 2 or 3 days late on my payments. They justify this because they sent me a "reminder letter".
this did not age well.
he did not mention that you can make people not being able to vote if you privatize it. also public services are never meant to make money.
No, the taxpayers absolutely DO NOT pay towards the USPS! We are funded by purchases made by customers. The reason why we are in debt is because we have to pre fund our healthcare 75 years in advance...which is absurd! I assure you, we deliver a lot more than junk mail!
The postal service is taxpayer funded by the line-of-credit and the that keeps the postal service from defaulting since they keep losing BILLIONS every year. The government also funds the pensions of postal employees. Quit drinking the kool-aid! You also contradicted yourself by saying that the government "prefunds" their healthcare. Do even read what you are about to post?
It's all that micromanaging and unneeded stipulations thats really killing the PO. I'm convinced they could whip themselves in shape if it wasn't saddled with the amateur lawyers in congress freaking out every time they want to up the price of stamps a half-cent.
I miss this show :(
Edit: Or whatever, clips. Mini...series? Whatever. lol
*Lysander Spooner smiles in satisfaction as the postal service disintegrates*
What about the rural areas the private companies won’t go to cause it’s not profitable?
Not accurate. They'd just charge more. Source: live in a rural area.
Okay, James Adams. How about people won’t be able to afford their own fuckin mail?
Puerto Riconnect
I agree with your point but your overt aggression made me laugh so hard
@@puertoriconnect4611 nope. We just drive to where we can pick it up and afford it. How about a real argument instead of a regurgitated talking point from ignorance?
@@ExPwner WHo the fuck wants to spend hours driving to a spot and waste an entire day just to send a fucking letter to pay their bills or get their paycheck?
Germany tried to privatize their post office and it didn't work to well. Also the public doesn't want post offices to close.
People love subsidizing their junk mail.
I am living in Germany and the post offices work fine. Most cities have post offices run the by the Deutsche Post AG (former federal post privatized in 1995). The smaller offices have been closed and the services have been transferred to local shops. After the privatization there were better services and longer opening hours. The Deutsche Post AG is today one of the biggest postal enterprises in the world and is earning instead of burning money. 95% of all mail reaches the customer within one day.
Royal Mail was privatised in the UK fine.
The thing is private businesses don't always work in the short run. But in the long run, if a postal business can make a positive contribution to society, then you'll have a working postal service in the long run.
The USPS was ordered to pre-fund all retiree's health care for the next 75 years. The only organization to ever have that burden placed on it. Ever. If the USPS ever shows a profit, it is confiscated by the federal government. The USPS will forward your mail. Free of charge. SO if you were to send say a wedding invitation to your Aunt Marge in Walla Walla, but you forgot that she moved to Key West, no worries. The USPS will forward it for you at no additional cost. FedEx and UPS would never do that. That 49 cent you spent to send that invitation would get about 200 miles with FedEx and UPS. Plus, the USPS is constitutionally mandated. An amendment to the constitution would be required to privatize it.
No, the constitution says "The congress shall have the power to establish post offices". It does not say "The congress shall be required to operate post offices and carry mail."
You are correct!
@@quintonashley5745 Who are you replying to???
UPS/FEDEX/DHL want NO PART of mail delivery - the logistics costs are far too high, and spending the money to upgrade would destroy profits. UPS/FEDEX only comes to your house when they have something to deliver. USPS comes to your house 5-6 days a week, without fail, whether you have something substantial or not. UPS/FEDEX, in case you've noticed, are NOT getting any cheaper to deliver than USPS. This idea is stupid.
The Dutch postal service is regulated too. They're forced to deliver to every single address and to achieve that, are being subsidized too. I honestly think the only reason for that is that the government wants to make sure their tax letters arrive to every single person in the country.
Yes it does subsidence Express mail, but if you aren't Amazon the difference between 1-3day and < 5 pounds at $18 vs $87 with UPS is the difference between you having a business or not. Also the loss over the past 10 years has more to do with the inflated pensions than the core operations management cost.
My local post office is only open 9:30 to 2:30. WTF!!?? I can't get there on a weekday without taking time off from work.
I like the post office! As a small business owner, it's almost always the fastest and least expensive way to mail small parcels. It's also a friendly and central community hub in many rural areas. Many for-profit delivery services still hand off their parcels to the post office to deliver to rural routes that aren't profitable. Without the post office, many people would be paying much more for delivery to remote areas.
Exactly. The postal industry is intricate and complex. Nobody should trust a 4 minute video that explains none of the nuance required to even dig into the argument between a privatized and non-privatized USPS.
>least expensive way to mail small parcels
That's because taxpayers are subsidizing you.
@ArtemiaSalina They aren't, they haven't since the 80's.
There is SO MUCH wrong with this line of thinking. A private mail service would be more expensive, and would ultimately abandon " unprofitable" routes. Mail delivery should remain a function of government.
There's so much wrong that you could only come up with 1 thing? Maybe if you live in BFE where it's too costly to provide you service then you shouldn't get service? That's what you choose when you live in the middle of nowhere. You don't get municipal water or sewer or fiber internet out there either, often times.
lmao what? there hasnt been a single recorded case of something costing more when done privately. government is the most inefficient and costly """business"""
The post office can’t be privatized it’s protected by the constitution.
The Constitution can be edited by the Amendment process. Truth is, Fed Ex and UPS could deliver mail MUCH FASTER AND MORE EFFICIENTLY than the Post Office can. Time for the Dinosaur to go extinct and become a fond memory like the 440 steam locomotive and the winter horse sleigh.
You completely skipped that they have to fund every employees full retirement as soon as they are hired. Could mc Donald’s stay in business off they had to fund retirement account every time they hired a new worker? Get Congress out of the way and make them compete. you have the opportunity to give equal access to shipping instead of small businesses buisness subsidizing the losses fedex makes on Amazon packages.
Privatising the post did little to reduce the actual cost here in Denmark, the Swedish private firm took over our postal service too. As with all things Swedish it naturally was shown to be inferior to the Danish system, as it only got worse and cost even more, and they even needed several government bailouts too. And as it is still the only company delivering letters they can still just set the prices.
It took me longer to get a letter from a town less than 100 km from here (1-1½ hours drive), than it took to get a package from the US, that had to be sent from China to begin with.
Postnord is way worse than the old Swedish national mail service too, so the problem isn't Sweden. Actually, the Swedish branch of Postnord turns a profit, while the Danish branch loses tons of money.
I can send a letter to anywhere in the US for 45 cents. Just making something private does not make it better.
Or we could just end its monopoly in the first place. Lysander Spooner was kicking their asses in the 1800s and they shut him down "because we have a monopoly on mailing letters."
I don't think you understand what a monopoly is....... If the USPS has or had a monopoly there wouldn't be any FED Ex or UPS. What company tried delivering letters and couldn't compete because the USPS was too cheaper?
Not Here i think he meant that the government shut them down because the government is the only one allowed to mail letters.
What monopoly? Last time I checked FedEX and UPS were still giant megacorporations fucking us into the grave with overpriced bullshit services.
@@ewill312 that is correct.
@@davidlewisjohnson4235 first class letter delivery is not allowed for others. This stems way back to the 1800s. Read up on Lysander Spooner. The USPS was fucking people with high prices back then, and it was only his (illegal) competition that made them lower the pricing. Now we have junk mail subsidizing the USPS and they keep their monopoly status which crowds out private business.
The only reason the USPS is in the red each year is because of the ridiculous pension prefunding requirement imposed upon it by congress. The Usps doesn't take taxpayer funds. They operate completely through postage revenue. They do have a monopoly on letter mail though, so that could be considered a subsidy in a sense.
Where do you think the pensions come from? The money fairy?
@@MisterE80 The requirement was to prefund the pensions 75 years in advance which is completely unreasonable. No private company prefunds pensions for workers who aren't even born yet.
@@highontaiwan That's still taxpayer money.
@@highontaiwan They also have a line of credit funded by taxpayer funds as the video stated.
I wonder how long would it take until privatized post offices would start making extra profit for themselves through selling their service directly to advertisers in obscure levels. Also how long would it for some new privacy issues to surface, as privatized postal services would likely be more keen to ensure mail gets delivered instead of letting undeliverable parcels get stuck in their archives. After all, very strict laws would still be in place to prevent them from opening the post or even discarding it before quite a few years, and if there is no sender's address or name...
As a part time rural postal carrier who retired from UPS and spent 4 years at FedEx... I approve of this
Bet you enjoy that sweet ass retirement that most private workers never get to collect.
8 post office employees disliked this video
idiots !
They'd have make more money after privatizing at least some will retire with lots of cash in settlement !
@@shadyworld1 sorry my friend you a horribly wrong.. They are not going to pay us no where near what we get paid now.
Now 9
It costs the same to send a letter from any part of the USA. If privatized, it would cost more for rural locations. Plus, ya know, it’s part of the constitution. Annnd it receives 0$ tax dollars and had to prefund pensions for like ?? 75 years. Plus is the largest employer of Veterans.
If there's enough demand over there, which there is, then with those higher prices comes more competition. That drives down the cost. This is a self correcting issue if left alone and given time. One that'll be cheaper for most people in the end.
Does residential service need to be daily? I’d probably do well with twice a week. Other than certified or registered mail, everything else is spam
Gonna have to disagree on this one. Yeah it loses money but it still is the staple way of correspondence and has the unique obligation to deliver a package to anyplace in the USA and abroad, FedEx and ups don't have that and will often hand over packages to the postal service for the final mile in some places; hell, DHL, at least any time I get a DHL package, just usually can't be bothered and just drives it to the post office directly.
It might seem annoying and redundant in the 21st century but we're better off with it than without it.
THIS IS DEMOCRACY DIES
always love seeing a new mostly weekly video.
It's funner and more entertaining than all the late night tv shows combined.
course my neighbor's dead cat is more entertaining than most of them, so that's not much in the way of competition.
so i guess the good news is you're more entertaining than a dead cat. gratz.
I spent 1 hour 28 minutes today on the phone with USPS today. I spoke to a live person for only 15 minutes. Most of the time was on hold (after the automated labyrinth ALLOWED me to wait on hold for a person.)
There are a bunch of reasons why complete privatization of the postal service is a TERRIBLE IDEA:
People keep bringing up that the postal service is “losing money” without understanding WHY that is. The reason we lose money on it is because the government version REQUIRES that it be able to deliver and take mail from you EVEN IF ITS A NET LOSS EVERY TIME. If we hand it over to private companies, those in extremely rural areas or in extreme poverty will either be completely excluded from getting or receiving mail OR be charged an absurdly high fee to account for the cost (either way it would be pretty unfair and a complete shitshow for some). Not to mention with potential political implications due to how some areas of the country are populated (and with how Mail ballots would be effected by such a change)
Not to mention how it would open the door to monopolization, and if one major company was to dominate the ENTIRE industry (say for example Amazon) they jack the prices up to a lucrative degree and nobody would be able to do anything about it, they could also outcompete or buy out any potential smaller competitors due to smaller costs and large profits. It would also box out the people form making any changes to the system as well, as the companies could EASILY grease the hands of politicians to ignore the issue or give them legislation to be exempt from certain laws. This is why cable and WiFi sucks in America, as companies such as Comcast and Verizon have had legislation that made them exempt from monopolization laws, and due to their necessity and large profits have become the second largest congressional spender.
However, with the current mixed system it still allows for larger amount of economic movement while giving the industry a chance to innovate and reinvent itself to become more efficient. It provides extra jobs and benefits and encourages each and every company to be subject to the open market, where it can minimize costs, maximize profits, give employees better treatment, and provide customers with a better experience through satisfying their needs and niches that they wouldn’t have been able to without the ability of the market. So although having a government service doesn’t SOUND capitalistic, it actually is fantastic for the country (and we should do it for other industries, to help eliminate monopolies such as the ones that are owned in the funeral industry, providing of eyewear/glasses, and most importantly cable companies)
TLDR: the postal service is fine as it is, and we shouldn’t ruin a good system, even if it isn’t perfect sometimes.
It's not a good thing that the post has to deliver at a loss. It guarantees that no profitable way of sending letters to rural areas will ever be found. It also creates an externality in that people that live remotely don't have to bear the full cost of living so. The post office already IS a monopoly that's already fleecing you to the tune of 50 billion over 10 years. It's just that this huge amount is hidden your taxes. I bet if every US-ian got a seperate bill for the Post Office liabilities it would be privatized tomorrow.
> WiFi sucks in America
Internet in the US has gotten better since net neutrality was repealed. Who would have though? Well Libertarians did.
C As
WiFi has not gotten better since net neutrality has been repealed (it’s only gotten better for a few mainstream sites, everything else is starting to lack behind). Private cable companies now have the option to charge lucrative amounts for semi decent speed (because of a lack of competition). So although WiFi may seem to be getting “faster” we are still VERY far behind compared to other first world countries.
It’s necessary for EVERYONE to receive mail, by your logic EVERYONE that doesn’t live in a major city in the US should have to pay much higher fees for ALL mail (even the stuff they have no option over receiving). This also favors certain political parties over the other, as those that often live in rural areas are usually Republican (so with mail in ballots they would be much more democrat, due to less republicans wanting to pay the fee). Also mail in ballots would then be considered UNCONSTITUTIONAL, as it would count as a “poll tax” of sorts.
The “huge amount” you mention isn’t even that much (50 billion is just a drop in the ocean, that’s nothing compared to the over 600 BILLION we spend on the overinflated US military). The postal service is a PUBLIC SERVICE (like a police department or fire department, most of those seem to lose us money but you don’t see anyone complaining), that’s because on a public service you are MEANT to lose money, as it’s a benefit for everyone.
Overall, the postal service isn’t exactly “broken” like some want you to believe, and we shouldn’t get rid of it (at least not completely), as it would open the door for monopolization and increased fees for everyone.
C As
Comcast is the second largest congressional spender, they have legislation in place which creates an oligopoly for them and prevents new businesses from arising, “the market” as you describe is dead for the American cable industry, because generations of “lobbying” and exclusivities have given these companies what I like to call “fuck you money”
Ex. You want to start a small cable business, well you can’t, because we at Comcast will use our “fuck you money” to beat you when it comes to costs, or we will temporarily lower our rates until you go bankrupt (and if either of those tactics don’t work, we will simply buy you out). Because cable companies have been EXEMPT FROM MONOPOLY LAWS due to legislation spanning back like a hundred years.
We aren’t paying high fees because of the post office, the overall cost is simply just spread over the population of 100 million plus money earned from corporate taxes/tariffs. I hate when people say “this will increase/decrease taxes” because the truth is the government will probably take the profits from somewhere else instead, take on more debt, or print more money.
But aren't we paying that loss through taxes which in most cases hurt the lower class more? The private business delivers packages at a higher price. They do this to recoup cost. If they dont want to spend the money then that letter wasn't necessary. They can take their business elsewhere hopefully where you arent forced to pay operating costs then more on top of it via taxes that kill your lifestyle.
@@moparty4409
The problem with your argument is that if we privatize the postal service people may not have another option for a company they want to receive mail from, privatization would undoubtedly create a ton of local monopolies that all charge obscene prices for their packages. Not to mention mail that people have no option over whether they want to receive some of the mail or not (mail ballots, bills, etc.), which will be charged to them even if they don’t want it (or even worse, can’t afford it).
The taxation method actually effects the lower class less (because no politician goes “let’s tax the lower class and poor people more!”), and other social classes (mainly the middle and upper class) pay a very good portion of that money. Not to mention, how nice the postal service can be with delivering mail to you (they have to legally get mail to you, even if it’s a net loss every time), if we make the industry private then those that live in rural or country areas will start paying much more for mail. This isn’t even including how politics would factor into this, how some people wouldn’t be able to vote or receive mail ballots because it’s too expensive for them to get (due to new “mail fees” from the new industry).
Not to mention how this change to privatization would be a nightmare to manage at first, with so many smaller companies and corporations dipping into the market, the government would have to add new forms of regulation, legislation, bureaucracy, and red tape to deal with it all. Not to mention how it would become much more difficult to have the police, homeland security, law enforcement track where certain packages came from, and how the new industry would be much more open to organized crime. Many government jobs would be cut as well, which would then be roadblocked by unions, employees, and many more people as well. This is all coming at a time where EVERY politician is making a hissy fit over jobs and their availability.
The problem w/ corporations is that they're looking to cut labor costs, paying its employees shit, while they keep all the gains for themselves!
But other employers fight for the same employees. Which pushes up the wage that companies have to pay their workers. Competition between employers increases wages.
Most companies pay good wages. Name a single company that pays “shit wages” none. Now I’ll tell you of the socialist system: You work and you don’t get paid or you are paid RARELY IF AT ALL. Travel to Cuba and ask questions. Travel to Venezuela and look at the disaster there. They all have something in common: they abandoned economic freedom and it ruined them!!! People are FLEEING from those countries.
2006 Postal reform law (passed buy Republican congress and signed by W) saddled the Postal service with a more than $5 billion dollar per year requirement, to prefund retiree health benefits for 75 years into the future. No other government or private organisation has a requirement like that. They also tied the price of 1st class postage to the inflation rate (CPI). The inflation rate is figured without including the cost of fuel. The Postal service has more than 200,000 vehicles...... The Postal service delivers mail to communities at the bottom of the Grand Canyon via pack animals. I wonder if UPS or Fedex would do that??? How about remote Alaskan villages where they land on bodies of water to deliver a few items?
This is just gold
I would prefer to do my bills online so I can the government what they want instantly without having a gun to head
I wouldn't trust private company to mail me my bills to be honest
Bills mailed? What are you, Amish?
but you would trust a government service? You do know USPS mail gets lost, and contrary to their "neither rain nor snow" policy of always getting your mail to you, they DO cancel deliveries sometimes, sometimes they won't/don't deliver to places with high crime like parts of Chicago. A private company that loses mail runs the risk of losing customers, with the government it doesn't matter- they're your only choice because there's no competition.
@@thesnare100 they done it for centuries. Is been around since the beginning of the country.
@@jorgerascon1212 the USPS? Yes and it loses millions of dollars, unlike a private company that will shut down/shut locations down if it is losing money
Actually I trust a private firm more than I trust the mail-losing Post Office.
Let's not forget the law passed forcing the USPS to fund 50 years of pensions in advance and also restricts their ability to raise prices. They would be fine if it weren't for that law. It was called the "post office accountability act" or something like that. USPS is needed since it delivers mail to everyone. Private mail would not deliver to the remote places of the country.
First off, this would result in people in isolated areas not being able to communicate or pay their bills. Such places are just not profitable and a private company would cut them off and say "not my problem." Some things are necessary services that just don't work under a profit motive.
Privatise it.If it can compete with UPS and Fedex then they'll be fine.if not, then someone better will take their place.
the postal service is a SERVICE to the american people, not a company. Fedex and UPS won't deliver everywhere in the us and never will because it's not profitable. Rural families would be hit hard by privatization of the postal service. Do some research you sheep.
also, fedex and ups are the post offices best customers. this video is bullshit. the post office is practically privatized to itself anyways. not one tax dollar pays for anything and its entirely running off its own profits. it loans the government money to keep it together like it did during the 2008 economy collapse, not the other way around
i mostly agree that postal service is like a public road. It serves all of us.
So private companies can produce skyscrapers, airplanes, computers, provide internet etc... better than any government can, BUT the ONLY thing they can't do well is DELIVER MAIL? How can you be so fucking stupid?
The question isn't if it serves all of us, it's whether it should have to serve all of us, it clearly shouldn't, private companies can do better, if you think they can do better than private companies then just let it compete freely and it naturally rises to the top and stays there, it's that simple.
LMAO! I love this guy!
I'm sure bills will find a way to get to me with or without stamps. Dammit! xD
the postal service is a SERVICE to the american people, not a company. Fedex and UPS won't deliver everywhere in the us and never will because it's not profitable. Rural families would be hit hard by privatization of the postal service. Do some research you sheep.
I worked at USPS for 10 years. Not including letter carriers, only about 2 out of 5 employees actually do anything. We had 3 Stupidvisers that would do nothing. We all knew our jobs. So all the Stupidviser did was flirt with the women and make other people do some lazy ass's job.
Heard gvmt won't amend contract with postal service to include extending number of employees, regardless of a huge increase of package delivery.
The people who work there actually do like it,
It's a strange place to work.
Since the U.S Constitution gives Congress the ability to establish post offices in Article 1 section 8, there would need to be a Constitutional Amendment to overturn that part, and I honestly don't see a Constitutional Amendment for privatization of the post office being successful.
Kacie, I don't think your argument is correct. The US constitution allows Congress to establish Post Offices and Post Roads, but it does not require it to. The ability to establish Post Offices gives it a right to regulate Post Offices, which reasonably could be argued that it can grant a monopoly to deliver mail, and forbid the creation of state sponsored post offices. But it could establish post offices simply by defining regulations by which private entities could enter into business to do one or more part of the process of delivering mail.
Consider these points: Establishing some denomination as a state religion didn't either necessarily forbid other denominations from existing. The Church of England is the established religion of England, but Catholic churches still exists in England, as well as many others. Also, it does not set up the situation where the government of the UK directly runs the Church of England. Similar arguments could be made for states that had established denonminations (Connecticut, Massachusetts for example)
Similarly, mail is not forbidden to travel on state, local, or private roads. It is not forbidden to build state, local, or private roads.
While the US constitution gives the power to coin money to the Congress with similar phrasing, it includes explicit wording to forbid states from doing the same in Article 1 Section 10. There is no equivalent phrasing to deny private entities the right to deliver mail. That is in federal statute - see American Letter Mail Company started by Lysander Spooner.
It gives an ability, not a mandate.
"The Congress shall have Power...To establish Post Offices and post Roads..."
Nothing in there seems to mandate establishing Post Offices (or post Roads), nor forbids them being private, nor prohibits competition with them. It's only law that does so.
Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, and others even argued that although congress had those powers, the power for the federal government to fund such services at taxpayer expense was never addressed and should have required a constitutional amendment.
Kacie Anderson
True. Congress will grab any power it can, but won't release power without a fight.
How about the emissions involved in driving around stuffing all that garbage into people's mailboxes? I check my box once a week when I take the trash out and the mail without PII goes right into the can, the rest is destined for the fireplace
The USPS has a couple large customers. UPS and FedEx. They figured out it's cheaper just to deliver some packages to a Post Office and let them deliver it.
I don’t think that is true. They might only fob off packages ONLY IF they do not have the air or ground resources to deliver it themselves.
Without the post office I wouldn't be able to sell shit online. FedEx and UPS charge way more for small packages. First class mail, flat rate, parcel select and media mail make it possible for me. Otherwise I'd end up paying 12 bucks to UPS for what the post office will do for 3.50 in the same amount of time. And I do like getting my harbor freight coupons in the mail cause I am not printing anything out.
You are not entitled to your business being viable at the expense of others. And $3.50? You're full of shit. Flat Rate Boxes are also a flat rate ripoff.
The post office is not obligated to make money as a business, so their prices don't reflect the fair market price of shipping small packages. They should only deliver mail to allow UPS and FedEx to compete fairly
lmao that's funny?
Also, this argument has only recently become valid. 10 years ago, you would be wrong.
That Grndr joke was great.
In Sweden prior to the merge into "Postnord", Posten (as it was named then) wasn't bad and was a company, just funded by the state. But Posten was so widespread (a simple store could be a point for some economic incentive), somewhat administrative efficient, and affordable. I'm not saying Posten was heaven because just as people do fault that reflects on the service, but they did well being well rounded and reacted well to changes (again, at the time). It could be tough for competitors when a state-funded service did well and was available in most places since DHL and other competitors weren't as well "implemented" in smaller towns and only big cities.
But after the merge with the Danish service and the chaos that followed up, i can see how competitors did better this time around.
If it's funded by the state, it isn't a company.
Without the postal accountability act it would have made 5 million last year.
Okay... but what if I need to send a package from CA to the UK. That costs me about $23-$32 with the USPS (who turns it over to the Royal Mail once in the UK). Do you know how much it costs to send packages overseas via FedEx or UPS? About THREE TIMES that amount. That would not be good for me. :/
At first glance I thought sax players were gonna foot the bill for USPS retirement
Let's talk about that deficit... Congress mandated that they FULLY FUND retirement for future employees who aren't even born yet (100 years) ... So yeah... That would bankrupt ANY normal business!
Um... I'm pretty sure that the USPS has already been privatized or something almost like it. Sure their employees get federal benefits and such, but they don't have some kind of credentials to wave in your face and take your car.
The reason it is illegal for any other company to deliver letters is because all USPS employees are sworn in to protect the mail, deliver everything in a timely manner, and to prevent letters and packages from falling into the wrong hands.
Regarding UPS and FedEx, if you think about it, they don't really bother delivering letters and magazines because there isn't really a market for it simply because USPS already has all the room it needs to store the letters and magazines. Boxes on the other hand are very different. And if you look into it, UPS only exists because USPS made a contract with them. They couldn't handle the volume. However, if I'm not mistaken USPS is trying to go back on that contract too which is kinda funny.
Also, USPS hasn't received any government funding for several years. I don't remember when it stopped, but I know for a fact that it did.
1982 was when the Department of the Post office was restructured into the USPS. At that time it was no longer funded or subsidized by taxpayers. It is now funded by postage rates, which are controlled by the postal regulatory commission (PRC) the board of governors are appointed by Congress.
Another great video with Andrew Heaton on Reason. My favorite video though with him is the Star Trek: The Libertarian Edition.
You cant argue with "Free to Chewbacca" either.
We are already privatized, we haven't been under Congress's direction since 1974 so we could get raises without going through an act of Congress like the other departments go through. Besides, UPS, FED EX and Amazon all use the USPS as the last leg of the journey, especially to remote areas. Especially with Amazon since, if you ever get a package from Amazon on Sundays it was delivered by a city or rural carrier from the post office. Also, the Royal Mail is having strikes by their workers for bad management. Besides, it's easy to say this if you live in a population center but, if you're in the boondocks then you're out of luck because, it's not profitable to move mail and packages out to them.
I think that'd be like Steam. Good for the user as a monopoly, but imagine theres twenty or so different mail companies that you could use, that may or may not have a route where you need the mail to go(they wont go out of their way to ship one item).
Thus far the USPS has given me the best customer service. They're really good about hiding packages from street view and are more likely to take them back to the post office for safe keeping. Being able to have an extra large mailbox is also a nice touch because I order mostly small items but that's also monopoly
A privatised Post Office will see only areas that make a profit receive postal services, leaving whole regions without any postal access. You simply cannot compare nations with vast land mass with nations with small land mass. Privatisation just doesn't work. Australia Post isn't private and it makes a profit.
Seriously, this is not a fucking ideological issue. There is a reason the USPS exists and the core argument of this video and those on the side of the privatization of the USPS is fundamentally flawed.
Privatisation the ideology of greed, mate and would further restrict public access in less populated regions.
Economic competition, prosperity, and efficiency is not the same as an individual being greedy.
Socialism and its obsession with public institutions and taxes is greedy entitlement.
Wait? So couriers is us cannot deliver greeting cards and letters?
I’m curious how privatized postal services in other countries operate? I’m a mail man and I’ve gotta say it seems like it would be a safety hazard and logistical nightmare to have multiple companies attempting to deliver to the same mailboxes. Do they only allow one company to deliver in an area? If that’s
This video shouldn’t be taken seriously since it doesn’t even mention why USPS has been losing money since 2006. Look up the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. This is a super disingenuous video.
@The Last Danite Not true. They have historically lost money but from 1990-2006 they turned a profit consistently. and then that stopped because of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. Also, it is wrong to look at the usefulness of the post office through the lens of how much money they make. They’re a public service not a business. We don’t say that the military or medicare runs at a loss because that is not the point of those services or government. Governments don’t exist to turn profits, that’s what private businesses do. Government services exist to simply provide/guarantee that service for the people.
Rewatching this video with the knowledge that the makers knew the reason the Post Office was operating at a deficit since 2007 and refusing to mention it. Makes me doubt everything that comes out of this channel.
Eh, not sure about this one. In many rural areas you won't be able to find a fedex or UPS. For places with small populations any mail service settup there will lose money, and the postal service in that case is the only saving grace for those people.
You can say this about pretty much every government service ever to have existed ever at any level or form for all of time... government sucks at everything they do
Most of the time when I have to go to the post office, it is for some unpleasant statism related purpose, like a professional exam or a traffic ticket. I don't feel bad for the personnel that have to handle the paperwork that I rubbed on my taint.
Bushrod Rust Johnson
“I don’t like the way the system works, so I am an asshole to individuals that have nothing to do with the problem”
Although the current postal service isn’t perfect, it ensures that the market still has free will to monetize and innovate without the potential of monopolization.
@Jim Marbaz
That’s more of a local / government employee problem. It really has nothing to do with the issue. However, when the government has this kind of problem, often it gets solved up front and with much clearer regulations. With a complete privatization, things will be much more backroom, and there will be absolutely no guarantee things will ever get better ( because if there is monopolization or oligopolies that form in the private markets, the corporations can just say “fuck you” and change absolutely nothing (because it doesn’t effect their profits).
They should think about privatising the Airforce, they're civilians anyway.
These are the best
Huh, 2007 was the same year the iPhone was released. incredible how that little thing managed to create a deficit for the postal service.
Public is fine, but get rid of the subsidies and monopolies. Allow others to compete.
Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 is what has doomed the Post Office.
Going today to pick up a booklet of those Mangu-Ward stamps.
So you are telling me I can't buy one one of those ups paper mail things and use it to send a birthday card !?
If the history has told me one thing, it's the fact that privatization is almost never a good thing, at least not for employees.
No.
This is pure propaganda I hope everybody sees that
Nope. It isn't.
this guy is hilarious i subscriped just because of him
"Damn it!" LOL instant upvote.
If I had to use FedEx, UPS or any other service to deliver the items I sell online, I would lose business. My packages ship for under $2 to $3 because they are so small. With those other companies, I have to charge my customers an extra $4 for shipping, above what I already charge. As a libertarian, I get the issue here, but those other companies would have to show a significant decrease in costs (get rid of the unions, maybe) before I can switch... small businesses like mine need the USPS for now.
Some people have different needs and should be free to choose whatever business they want.
Fell Man , if I had the ability to use a different shipping method for my site, I would. I'm too small a company.
So non-customers should subsidize part of your business costs? Nah I'm good.
@@divinecomedian2 non-customers technically don't subsidize package shipping. But I see how you might think so. Fungibility is a thing. Let's just say, I would rather allow my FedEx not be beholden to the air line unions and UPS be trapped in the trucker unions, both of which manipulate government to maintain monopolies and high prices.
So you would rather you subsidized shipping to be non-government, but maintained by a similar governmental forces to prevent competition.
At the very least USPS has figured out ways to lower cost by renting empty space on planes and trucks, able to bust the monopolistic hold of the other two.
Let's agree to remove the laws that favor USPS, UPS, and FedEX and let competition work.
I love this guy and this format
It seems strange to see Andrew out of a Star Fleet uniform.
So, a couple years after this vid's posting, I was talking with a source working for USPS. For 2019, it's $9B of red ink. On top of premium wages, when someone in USPS retires (many as young as 40), they retain ALL their auxiliary benefits. There are *three* unions entwined with the employees. And Amazon? While they are a $10B income for USPS annually, they receive preferential handling: If there are two trucks at the dock and an Amazon truck pulls in, IT gets serviced first...And they pay REDUCED rates for this! And, to make sure people know: While the federal government currently funds USPS, it is NOT a federal but rather an independent organization - just one that may wallow in mismanagement.
www.opm.gov/retirement-services/fers-information/eligibility/
"If you love something...privatize it.
THE BOX GHOST!!!
It actually better with the current system of partial privatization. As without a government agency partially providing for the industry, the door would be wide open for monopolization (which would be bad for EVERYONE)
Courier 6 the usps literally has a legal monopoly on parcel services
The Pope
Not entirely, they don’t have a complete monopoly, urgent mail, Amazon, and other niches provide opportunities for expansion in the market (but it would be nice to repeal that part of the legislation). We still shouldn’t completely get rid of the postal service, just downsize it a tad so that the market has a bit more breathing room.
A government monopoly is still better then a corporate monopoly, as the government is much more easily influenced by the people, while a corporate monopoly is influenced by almost nobody.
@@courier6960 The usps has a monopoly because *it is illegal* to compete with them. They have a complete monopoly of specific services, which again is illegal for anyone else to do.
You don't seem to understand how monopolies work either. A monopoly can naturally arise, but as milton friedman put it, there only a few examples of long lasting monopolies without government intervention. Meaning, you can count on your first hand how many long lasting natural monopolies there are.
And a corporate monopoly is far better than a government one. Why? A corporation needs your voluntary transactions to stay in business so they at least need to succeed in making money to maintain a monopoly. Government doesn't, they get your money through taxes. They don't need to succeed to maintain a monopoly, and if they fail they get more money, because money is obviously the problem.
The Pope They don’t have a complete monopoly, just MOST of one. They don’t handle urgent mail, and there are other retailers that partially Handle delivery services (FedEx, Amazon, EBay (I think), and even walmart is getting in on it soon). Also high fashion sites have its own separate delivery service as well.
There are plenty of long lasting monopolies, yes they used to be broken up by the government but now they have infiltrated politicians pockets with money.
I can name a few modern day monopolies that will almost never be broken up:
Comcast and cable companies are the largest example, and they will never be broken up as they are the SECOND LARGEST CONGRESSIONAL SPENDER
Glasses are basically a monopoly (although it appears that it isn’t, most retail locations such as LensCrafters are owned by a single company, they also provide the insurance for the glasses as well)
The funeral industry is mostly consolidated, as most “small businesses” are actually owned by a singular company that keeps the old names (the CEO even described themselves as a cash cow)
Disney is also slowly consolidating the film industry and becoming a large monopoly.
You fail to understand how corporate monopolies work, they don’t need voluntary transactions because they ARE THE MARKET. There are NO ALTERNATIVES, so everyone relies on them to provide the service, and they fund politicians to ignore the issue so no change will come.
When the government owns a monopoly, the people are still EASILY able to influence it through advocation, petitions, protests, and lobbying. The government can’t fund politicians, so it’s not self sustaining. You consider that because the postal service is “losing money” that means that they are failing, when that is far from the truth. The reason they lose money is mainly 2 reasons:
They are more of a public service (think of fire departments and police stations, we lose way more money then we earn on those but nobody complains because it’s an overall benefit to society)
The USPS requires that you get your mail even if it is ALWAYS A NET LOSS, this ensures that nobody gets left out of the mail service due to distance or profits, and/or that they don’t get ridiculously up charged for it. If we were to fully privatize the service some people would be subject to enhanced fees, or be left out of getting mail entirely, not to mention the political implications through mail order ballots and taxes... it could give one party an unfair advantage over the other.
3:18 If only that were still Sweden.
Buff Awesome yeah man
You would never have been invited anyway.
The title is misleading, but the video clarifies it is already half privatized.
I think that there is one legitimate function of govt in this: Standardizing and recording official addresses. Our system in the US is substantially more logical than most of the world, probably because it happened later. That however, is mostly done anyway under the process of recording land ownership at county auditors/ and in the county level tax system. Everything else should be free market.