Postal system can’t compete in free market

****[FONT=Arial]This was in my local paper today what do you think—Stan?[/FONT]

**Letters to the Editor **
**Postal system can’t compete in free market **To the Editor:
http://www.kdhnews.com/news/letters.aspx?r=1

Recently there have been several articles’ appearing in the Killeen Daily Herald concerning the U.S. Postal Service losing billions each year.

The Postal Service has proposed reducing mail delivery to five days per week to reduce cost.

I propose a far better solution which will save the tax payers many billions of dollars each and every year, and to back up my savings proposal, hear me out.

Several months ago I sent my monthly payment to BestBuy Credit offices, and as my normal procedures I use on all my bill payments, I mailed my check 14 days before the due date.

The U.S. Postal Service took 16 days to deliver my payment. Therefore, the credit department charged me a two-day late fee of $39 .

Since it takes the Postal Service almost two weeks to deliver a letter within the U.S, my proposal is to have one delivery every two weeks.

It would more than serve my needs. I have now gone to an all–Internet bill payment system as well as paperless statements.The amount of money I save by no longer using U.S. snail mail more than pays my Internet account.

The U.S. could realize even greater savings by closing all postal offices and selling those 37,000 outlets to private-sector business like UPS, FedEx and others that are doing a fantastic job at a much lower cost.

Our obsolete so-called postal system cannot compete with the private enterprises. Never has and never will. Of course, all of you that love junk mail, love the system.

Posted on Sunday, August 23, 2009 by Jack Balthus Kempner

Now why it took sixteen days for his letter to get delivered I don’t know? I’ve never really had a problem with our Postal Service.

I just bet there is a problem with his local Post Office?

What I’ve been told the United States has the best Postal Service in the world.

Of course now I pay all my bills by Internet when I have to send a package I use USPS and it gets delivered on time, like I said, never had a problem with them.

My brother is a retired postal worker from Michigan and he has told me horrible stories about the Postal Union and how biased it is toward the Democratic Party. Other than that I don’t have a problem with them.

The Postal Service, I think, is an example of why the free market isn’t the panacea to all things. It isn’t a profitable enterprise to deliver certain papers from one law office to another, or to send bills through the mail, or other such things, but its a necessary one. The Post Office loses money because it doesn’t drop unprofitable enterprises when those enterprises are necessary; for example, delivering mail to rural outlying areas on a regular basis. The internet sometimes fluctuates, and computers sometimes break, and there are people who can’t even afford computers, but the mail always goes through.

In terms of the editorial, the article bases far too much on a piece of mail being delivered 16 days late. That’s pretty anecdotal, even by the standards of editorial columns. And going to online billing is not always a viable option.

Its true that the postal service can’t compete in the free market, but its important enough that we need it to exist. That’s why its a federal entity, and can survive without making a profit.

I do agree it must be a problem with his local post office. If my mom sends mail out though her local post office it takes a week to get anywhere. Even if it’s in that same town. However, when we send stuff out through our local post office, the mail gets to its destination the next day, even when that mail is going to neighboring towns. Not all offices are the same. Maybe he should try using a different post office?

I’d be willing to bet it wasn’t the Post Office, but Best Buy who delayed the payment. THere is no way for Best Buy to prove or not prove the payment was received, so they get to charge an additional $39. That is why all my bills are done via the Internet…the paid receipt is instantaneous.

I rarely mail anything these days…a card here and there, but that is about it. Even many of my Christmas cards are done via email (we do a photo collage of the year. We send out PDF files. Saves paper, ink, printing costs, and postage).

The Postal system is a perfect example of why the government should stay out of the free market system!

In the olden days, yes, the postal system was necessary to send mail.

But today, it should be disbanded completely. **It is a total waste of taxpayer money, losing BILLIONS of dollars every year. **

If there is a need in today’s modern world, then some entrepreneur will find a way to fill the gap, more efficiently without taxpayer dollars, look at UPS and Fedex.

i heard our President, Barack Obama, recently say ** “Government is the only solution” **.

HE IS SO INCREDIBLY WRONG, AGAIN! **(This is the same intelligent IVY LEAGUE educated attorney, who has an intelligent, beautiful and IVY LEAGUE educated, attorney wife, and 2 precious daughters, yet still supports abortion, the murder of innocent babies and the murder of black babies at a rate 3+ times higher than white babies??? !!!) **

The government is never the solution, only the option of last resort, ie. only when no other option is available, like the military for example.

As long as we acquiesce and give up our responsibilities to the government, then we will get what we deserve, ie. Social “Security” inefficient and bankrupt, Medicare, inefficient and bankrupt and every other Social Program run by the Government, inefficient and bankrupt.

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

If that’s true, than it was never necessary to have a postal office. Some entrepreneur would have filled the void back then, too. The Postal system was created because it didn’t happen, though. Of course, here’s the million-dollar question:

Are there certain tasks that are both necessary and unprofitable? If a task is both necessary and unprofitable, than that task must be fulfilled by the government, because private enterprise cannot fulfill it. For example, a legal office in Backwoods Town, Western State needs mail delivered on time. An entrepreneur in Quiet Southern Town, SomewhereDownSouth, has to have bills delivered in a timely manner. But wait, that’s a long way to go to deliver a few pieces of mail; there’s no reason for somebody like FedEx to run that route at a rate that John LocalLawyer or William Entrepreneur can pay.

That’s the virtue of a government program: government programs should be used to fulfill necessary or virtuous, but unprofitable functions.

i heard our President, Barack Obama, recently say ** “Government is the only solution” **.

HE IS SO INCREDIBLY WRONG, AGAIN! **(This is the same intelligent IVY LEAGUE educated attorney, who has an intelligent, beautiful and IVY LEAGUE educated, attorney wife, and 2 precious daughters, yet still supports abortion, the murder of innocent babies and the murder of black babies at a rate 3+ times higher than white babies??? !!!) **

Why do we have to bring abortion into a thread about the Postal Service? Or Barack Obama, for that matter; neither is relevant in the slightest to this particular discussion.

The government is never the solution, only the option of last resort, ie. only when no other option is available, like the military for example.

As long as we acquiesce and give up our responsibilities to the government, then we will get what we deserve, ie. Social “Security” inefficient and bankrupt, Medicare, inefficient and bankrupt and every other Social Program run by the Government, inefficient and bankrupt.

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

Nonsense.

[FONT=Times New Roman][size=3]Several months ago I sent my monthly payment to BestBuy Credit offices, and as my normal procedures I use on all my bill payments, I mailed my check 14 days before the due date.

The U.S. Postal Service took 16 days to deliver my payment. Therefore, the credit department charged me a two-day late fee of $39 .

[/size][/FONT]

I take issue with this statement: I have a BestBuy credit card and if he mailed it 2 weeks early and was charged $39 late fee, then he mailed it 2 weeks before the last day of the grace period, not the actual due date. He played roulette and lost; his tough break.

That could be rather faint praise. Sort of like say Moe was the smartest Stooge. :slight_smile:

– Mark L. Chance.

I don’t know why the USPS can’t compete with other postal services like Deutsche Post and Japan Post. DP is the world’s largest logistic company with world-wide operations. You may have known them in the US as DHL. They also bought out Airborne Express. Japan Post holds over $2.1 trillion in asset making billions in profits.

Private companies should be allowed to compete with the post office.

(1) They aren’t losing taxpayer dollars; all of their funds come from sales of stamps (and other, incidental income).

(2) How much would private companies charge to pick up a letter from my house and deliver it to the other side of the country, using the same error rates, six-day/week deliveries, on-time delivery data, and universal service (i.e., no cherry-picking of the “profitable” customers and leaving everyone else on their own)?

Just to clarify here:

In Japan, the post office if where many Japanese have their savings accounts. Those assets, then, are the equivalent of the deposits held by banks in the U.S. The assets don’t represent profits from the delivery of mail.

In the old days, only the Postal Service delivered packages. Then came competition: UPS, FedEx, DHL, and so on. These companies “cherry picked” the most lucrative segments of the package market, while the Postal Service, of course, was obliged to delivery packages to all addresses.

Some people thought this would result in sky-high rates being charged by the Postal Service. But guess what happened? Competition. The Postal Service, after a few years, ended up becoming competitive with the other delivery services.

The same thing would happen if first-class letter delivery no longer were a monopoly of the Postal Service. Competitors would start by delivering only the most-lucrative mail, such as intra-urban mail and mail generated by utilities. Prices for such mail would fall considerably.

Then those companies–and this is what happened with package delivery–would see they could make money by delivering mail more widely. All the while, the Postal Service would be forced to reform and streamline in order to compete.

There is no reason to think that letter delivery would work differently from package delivery. The former deals with small items, the latter with large items, but the principle is the same. Competition has proven very beneficial with respect to packages, and I think it would with respect to letters.

The real reason that the Postal Service has a monopoly on fist-class mail isn’t that private enterprise couldn’t do a better job. It’s that the postal union has a lot of clout.

The real reason that the Postal Service has a monopoly on first class mail is because Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7 of the US Constitution states that the Congress can establish the Post Office and Post Roads. The federal government has interpreted this to mean they have a monopoly on first class mail. I am sure that the postal union was key in this interpretation.

there are laws on the books which actually stop ups and fed-ex from directly competing with the usps. usps first class mail is much cheaper to ship but they can’t offer what these other businesses can even with an unfair advantage in the market.

this should tell people what a nightmare government run health care is going to be…

I totally agree that the free market is better than ANY government run industry. The post office is a startling reminder that the Constitution simply isn’t read the same way it was written.

The Postal Service is a good deal, when it comes to first-class mail–or so many people say. Look how cheap stamps are!

But they don’t take into account that the Postal Service receives a large subsidy each year, to cover its perennial deficit. If that were factored in, stamps would be much more expensive.

But why applaud even a 44-cent stamp if, with competition, letters could be mailed at, say, 35 cents (without a subsidy)?

Yes, the Constitution provides that Congress may establish a post office, but it does not mandate that Congress need give that post office a monopoly on certain classes of mail.

**Letters to the Editor **
**Postal Service not to blame for late fees **To the Editor:
kdhnews.com/news/letters.aspx?r=2

Recently you published a letter from Mr. Jack Balthus who stated it took the Postal Service 16 days to deliver a payment.

I have to disagree with this.

It isn’t the post office that is slow. It is the credit card company.

We also had this problem and figured out where the trouble was by sending the payment certified mail.

Low and behold it was received by the card company in three days. But it took 14 days before being posted to the card account.

Put blame where blame needs to be put.

These card companies hold payments just so that they can charge late fees.
**Posted on Sunday, August 30, 2009 by William Davis Lampasas **

15 year USPS letter carrier here. Does anyone actually believe that any private corporation is in place that will willingly set up a mail receiving and distribution system to provide universal service to anywhere in the US for 35 cents per piece?

Along with mandates, for example, free service for the blind and to military post offices. Delivery to points grandfathered into place (the mailbox next to your front door instead of the middle of the block as is done in newly constructed subdivisions) to prevent cost effective distribution.

UPS and FedEx exist because they only accept premium services and routes. Would they like to take ordinary letters to people already receiving packages? Possibly but then there is still the mandate the government has to deliver to those folks outside of economically feasible areas. Instead of stamp buyers and advertisers paying for that service it would have to come out of the general tax funds.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.