CreateDebate


Debate Info

80
66
YES, Stop the Monopoly NO, Great Public Service
Debate Score:146
Arguments:111
Total Votes:166
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 YES, Stop the Monopoly (63)
 
 NO, Great Public Service (51)

Debate Creator

PrayerFails(11165) pic



Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?

Is a coercive monopoly created through laws that ban potential competitors such as UPS or FedEx from offering competing services fair?

Is the government monopoly of the postal service a failure of the American People?

USPS is in billions of dollars in debt. Talks are in the works of eliminating Saturday mail.

Could UPS or FedEx do just as good as USPS in delivering First Class Mail?

 

YES, Stop the Monopoly

Side Score: 80
VS.

NO, Great Public Service

Side Score: 66
3 points

Yes, the USPS loses Billions of dollars a year. They are the example of every other government agency, the overhead is too much and they do not perform duties like other private companies do. The government should not be apart of mailings anyway, it is not in the constitution

Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

As much as I agree that the USPS should be dismantled, the government monopoly gets its stronghold from the Constitution.

In Congress' enumerated powers, Under Article 1, Section 8, To establish Post Offices and Post Roads.

The only way to defeat it would be a constitutional amendment repeal.

Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly
2 points

It is quite unfair that, once again, government is limiting the American's right to choose.

the US postal service is slightly efficient, and necessary as seen through history. But, as always, allowing the private sector to have their own delivery service (for first class mail) will create competition, thus, creating more efficient means of service. Not to mention that prices might even get cheaper (more mail for less money, with express and shit).

Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

Government + Postal Delivery + Public Monopoly - Fair Competition = Tyranny

Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

USPS public monopoly makes no sense.

Common misconception that raising rates hurts nobody, that is, except for direct mailers, small businesses, consumers, and anybody who doesn't work for the Post Office.

Justifications

1) "The USPS is hamstrung by government regulations. It's not fair to compare us with private business, because we have to do all sorts of things other companies don't."

How can you compare when they have never be allowed to compete?

2) "The delivery of mail is a natural monopoly."

Has the USPS ever heard of e-mail, faxes? Thanks to the genius of entrepreneurs in the private sector, those markets are now multibillion dollar industries.

3) "Universal service justifies our monopoly. Without it, there's no guarantee everyone would get mail."

USPS prides itself with universal service.

The high cost of rural delivery is fiction. It is all about the same cost.

Supporting Evidence: Public Monopoly (liberty.i2i.org)
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly
2 points

No way! That would be competitve to the government!

Just like the privatization of roads!

Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly
2 points

If a business needs to forcefully stop all competition just to survive in the market, how good can it possibly be?

Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly
2 points

Absolutely stop the monopoly. The world runs on incentives; where's the incentive to keep doing business better if there's no competition?

Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

Precisely, the USPS has no reason to innovate in delivering first class mail.

Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly
2 points

Yes, please stop the bleeding. It really has little to do with being a monopoly, and more to do with a poorly managed service.

Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

Andy, the reason the USPS has poorly managed service can be directly related back to the monopoly.

WHY? Monopolies are notorious for higher prices at low quality.

Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly
2 points

Yes, I agree with you. I was going down the path that the govenment let the monopoly get as bad as it was. For instance, most businesses which have a true monopoly (or close to it) generally have poor products and/or services, but make money, not lose billions.

Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

Despite the constitutionality of the Post Office, a Constitutional Amendment would be required to repeal the post office's power as the sole provider of first class mail.

It is another government failure at the expense of the American people. The coercive monopoly of the postal service totally ignores the value of the market. If UPS or FedEx or both were allowed to compete with the USPS, the USPS would ultimately fail without doubt. The USPS credits the failure to the increase in volume of internet use and e-mail. However, it is the inability of the USPS to adapt to market forces and demands.

The U.S. Postal Service must make drastic changes to avert a projected loss of $238 billion over the next decade. The move from six days to five could save the Postal Service $3.3 billion a year. The Postal Service is not funded by taxpayers and must rely on revenue from stamps and other postal services. It has borrowed about $10 billion from the U.S. Treasury and expects to borrow $3 billion more this year. [1]

Supporting Evidence: USPS [1] (www.usatoday.com)
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly
gcomeau(536) Disputed
2 points

If UPS or FedEx or both were allowed to compete with the USPS, the USPS would ultimately fail without doubt.

Yeah, and we can see this by the fact that Fed Ex and UPS currently often send their own packages through USPS to remote locations becuse it's cheaper than delivering them themselves.

Side: NO, Great Public Service
MegaDittos(571) Disputed
0 points

If you privatize the USPS you will have some unintended consequences.

The reason for the monopoly is that private companies will not and do not find it cost efficient to deliver to all addresses. So, whenever there is any talk of privatizing the USPS, universal service will be eliminated by the market.

Do you want to allow UPS and Fed-ex to only deliver in highly populated areas driving any company with universal service out of business thus eventually bringing about large areas of no delivery? Would that not then bring about a more expensive goverment department to fill the needs of those individuals the private market finds too expensive to deliver to.It already happens as UPS and Fed-ex contract out delivers to the USPS in areas they don't find profitable to deliver to.

Or would allowing a monopoly for the sole purpose of not having to pay MORE goverment funds to deliver to places the private industries don't want to deliver?

The USPS gets the advantage it does to continue to deliver to ALL addresses.

Is it efficient, no way but in it's years it continues to deliver to every address on every business day. Now, I'm sure the USPS could compete with any business that is forced to do the same exact thing. If UPS and Fed-Ex were forced to service every address that receives something six days a week,you don't think their costs would sky-rocket.

If it's ever done you would hear the same people complaining because their service was stopped or become much too expensive.

Universal service is what keeps the USPS apart from all others.

Side: NO, Great Public Service
2 points

What unintended consequences? ---Breaking Up a government monopoly.

Apparently, universal service justifies a government monopoly. Without it, there’s no guarantee everyone would get mail. That is a myth.

When USPS implies the phrase universal service, they mean the delivery of mail to any address anywhere in the US for one single price. Even if it makes no sense. Even if they have to threaten competitors with jail time.

How is it fair to make people who choose to live in cities subsidize people who choose to live in the country? So, those who live in country should get cheaper mail at the expense of urban people.

Who actually believes that delivering a package next door for the same price as to delivering to Alaska accomplishes some critical social goal?

Then, why is it so important for letters?

People live far in rural areas for a reason because well, they want to; they accept the costs and the benefits. More power to them. Universal service simply hides the true costs of rural living. Nothing more.

Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly
fletch92131(2) Disputed
1 point

If the privatization contract was written to mandate universal delivery, no one can contest that, and I think you'll find that he winner of the contract will use all available means of complying with "universal delivery", even if means subcontracting back to USPS or anyone else. That's part of the beauty of private enterprise, there no rules prohibiting HOW "universal service" must be performed. Also, the USPS business model is outdated, like the contested closing of the Berkley, CA post office. Better to sell those beautiful bldgs for cash and move-into supermarkets, and other places where people naturally congregate in the course of their daily lives.

Finally, USPS's labor costs are way out-of-sight, when compared with UPS & FEDEX.

Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

The Postal Service is an egregious monopoly distorting all mail service.

Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly
3 points

Allow me to introduce you to Fedex.

Oh, and UPS.

But the things is, guess who they often subcontract to deliver packages to remote locations FOR them? USPS. Because it isn't cost effective for them to do it themselves. The private secotr is NOT better at everything, some things the public sector just handles in a superior manner. This is one of them.

Side: NO, Great Public Service
2 points

The public sector is not better than anything. Government is inefficient. If economists could figure out a way to privatize the military, it would be done.

The Post Office is more about inefficiency than effectiveness because given the right tools, the private sector can just be as effective and certainly more efficient.

Since the 1970's, the Postal Service was no longer supported by tax money; instead, the Service is required to rely on itself to generate revenue.

Even through $5 billion in cuts, the Postal Service will still fall $2 billion short of operating in the black in 2010. In order to make the cuts, the Postal Service has cut some 40,000 jobs.

The biggest concern with the Postal Service is the public monopoly, which does not allow for competitive forces to eliminate inefficiencies. The postal service is a textbook example of a monopoly because of a lack of competitive pressures. It faces little incentive to minimize costs and thus continues to operate at inefficient levels. Government laws prevent benefits of competition that challenges the postal system's monopoly.

Resources need to be reallocated more efficiently.

Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly
gcomeau(536) Disputed
1 point

The public sector is not better than anything. Government is inefficient. If economists could figure out a way to privatize the military, it would be done.

Congratulations, you made an argument and proved it was wrong all in a single opening statement!

Guess WHY people "can't figure out" how to privatize the military and actually make it work?

And the post office doesn't operate in the black because it keeps prices very very low to give the US citizenry a cheap way to send mail because THAT'S IMPORTANT TO THE COUNTRY. Ever wonder why the founding fathers put it right in the Constitution? It wasn't just because they had some kind of personal fetish for postmen and thought it would be cool.

If you privatize the system costs WILL rise.

Let's say the population of the United states is 100,000 people.

Now, let's also say those 100,000 people all, on average, send 1 letter per year. So the USPS hires enough people to cover the ENTIRE country and get letters between all those people to all the places they live and pays their salaries with the postage they charge on 100,000 letters.

Now, let's privatize the system. We still have a population of 100,000, and they're still spread over the same geographic area, but now we have two competing companies that need to deliver mail. Let's say they compete really well and end up splitting the customer base evenly, so each ends up with 50,000 customers.

Now, instead of delivering 100,000 letters each they both end up delivering 50,000 a year. Which means they're only getting paid for 50,000 a year. But do they get to cut their work force in half? NO. Because the size of the workforce you need isn't primarily a function of how MANY letters are being sent, it's largely a function of how many PLACES they're being sent. And that didn't change! Oh, you'll be able to cut your staff a little, fewer people at the central sorting facilities and such, but not in half. Not even freaking close. So how do you pay them?

You RAISE PRICES. There's no other choice. And in the meantime the other company you're competing with is just doubling up on all your delivery resources so they can deliver to the same places you are where before a single delivery organization was handling everything. Which is wasting MASSIVE amounts of money.

Side: NO, Great Public Service
Bohemian(3861) Disputed
1 point

The public sector is not better than anything. Government is inefficient.

I can't help but feel that this is more of an ideological statement than a statement of fact. Through coercion or otherwise, the reason why we aren't talking about privatizing the postal service is because most people are genuinely happy with it. It works. I'd much rather use the United States Postal Service than UPS or FedEx. If you want to use either of those services you are free to do so.

Side: NO, Great Public Service
fletch92131(2) Disputed
1 point

If the privatization contract was written to mandate universal delivery, no one would lose service, and I think you'll find that he winner of the contract will use all available means of complying with "universal delivery", even if means subcontracting back to someone else. That's part of the beauty of private enterprise, there no rules prohibiting HOW "universal service" must be performed. I believe that the USPS should be reformed into a Contracting and Oversight business, where their only function is to write ,award, and oversee/evaluate completion of that service.Also, the USPS business model is outdated, like the contested closing of the Berkley, CA post office. Better to sell those beautiful bldgs for cash and move-into supermarkets, and other places where people naturally congregate in the course of their daily lives.

Finally, USPS's labor costs are way out-of-sight, when compared with UPS & FEDEX.

Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly
2 points

lmao.

You can send a letter anywhere in the 3.79 million sq mile expanse of the US for 37 freakin cents, and you want private companies to take that over?

You'd be paying $5 for stamps by tomorrow.

Side: NO, Great Public Service
1 point

This is more about efficiency than effective because of the coercive monopoly. UPS and FedEx would hire more people where they would be able to cover the vast plains of the United States. The private companies would have more opportunity if the ban on private companies would be repealed.

Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly
gcomeau(536) Disputed
3 points

Wow, there you go again. First we can cut health care costs by hiring lots and lots of doctors and nurses and building lots more hospitals... which have to be, you know, paid for. Now we can cut postal rates by hiring lots and lots more delivery people! Who have to be, you know, paid.

In your view it seems that any cost can be reduced by spending more money... it's fascinating really.

Side: NO, Great Public Service
Bohemian(3861) Disputed
1 point

No they wouldn't. Private companies generally hire less people to perform the same tasks as their public counterparts. A good example is walmart which is notorious for understaffing their businesses. The reason is simple, the less employees the greater the profits.

Side: NO, Great Public Service
TERMINATOR(6778) Disputed
1 point

I really can't help but to dispute somebody who spells 'cents' as 'sense'.

Where are your sources which indicate that the price of stamps would soar if the postal service were privatized?

Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
1 point

fair enough, corrected.

Proof = UPS and FedEx. They already charge more, and they have to compete. Imagine if they didn't.

Side: NO, Great Public Service

the post office has been doing this for years and they hire 900,000 people were would those people be if the postal service was privatized? the mail carriers have many advantages that the private sector will never have like getting to know the people on their route

Side: NO, Great Public Service
1 point

Nothing the employees would still work for the USPS except that they would be competing against UPS and FedEx.

Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly
MegaDittos(571) Disputed
1 point

Would universal service be forced upon UPS and fed-Ex???

The USPS must deliver to EVERY address that receives something six days a week for the same price,one thing neither UPS or Fed-Ex even comes close to doing.

Side: NO, Great Public Service
1 point

If you privatize the USPS you will have some unintended consequences.

The reason for the monopoly is that private companies will not and do not find it cost efficient to deliver to all addresses. So, whenever there is any talk of privitizing the USPS, universal service will be eliminated by the market.

Do you want to allow UPS and Fed-ex to only deliver in highly populated areas driving any company with universal service out of business thus eventually bringing about large areas of no delivery? Would that not then bring about a more expensive goverment department to fill the needs of those individuals the private market finds too expensive to deliver to.It already happens as UPS and Fed-ex contract out delivers to the USPS in areas they don't find profitable to deliver to.

Or would allowing a monopoloy for the sole purpose of not having to pay MORE goverment funds to deliver to places the private industries don't want to deliver?

The USPS gets the advantage it does to continue to deliver to ALL addresses.

Is it efficient, no way but in it's years it continues to deliver to every address on every business day. Now, I'm sure the USPS could compete with any business that is forced to do the same exact thing. If UPS and Fed-Ex were forced to service every address that receives something six days a week,you don't think their costs would sky-rocket.

If's it's ever done you would hear the same people complaining because their service was stopped or become much too expensive.

Universal service is what keeps the USPS apart from all others.

Side: NO, Great Public Service
fletch92131(2) Disputed
1 point

If the privatization contract was written to mandate universal delivery, no one can contest that, and I think you'll find that he winner of the contract will use all available means of complying with "universal delivery", even if means subcontracting back to USPS or anyone else. That's part of the beauty of private enterprise, there no rules prohibiting HOW "universal service" must be performed. Also, the USPS business model is outdated, like the contested closing of the Berkley, CA post office. Better to sell those beautiful bldgs for cash and move-into supermarkets, and other places where people naturally congregate in the course of their daily lives.

Finally, USPS's labor costs are way out-of-sight, when compared with UPS & FEDEX.

Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

The chief difference between Government and Business is that a business MUST make a profit, while a public service is provide because it meets an overall social.... you know fuck it I'm tired of arguing with fucking people. Fuck you! Fuck you! Fuck you!

Side: NO, Great Public Service

Actually, if it weren't for an accounting requirement in the Postal Reform Act of 2006 to prefund retiree health benefits the Post Office would have been a couple billion in the black for 2008.

Supporting Evidence: Five myths about the U.S. Postal Service (www.washingtonpost.com)
Side: NO, Great Public Service
1 point

Exactly, Fed-Ex and UPS fund nowhere near the same percentage as the USPS as well as do not come anywhere near universal coverage in delivery.

Side: NO, Great Public Service
1 point

Fed-Ex and UPS fund nowhere near because the government prevents them.

The USPS doesn't receive any tax money, so all revenue must be generated by selling stamps and sending packages; OH, wait, that is exactly the same way that Fed-Ex and UPS operate.

Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly
fletch92131(2) Disputed
1 point

PolitiFact | Ad from Save America's Postal Service claims rule from Congress is causing USPS's financial problems, http://bit.ly/12snou1, says this is only HALF CORRECT!

Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly