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

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.

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

No way! That would be competitve to the government!

Just like the privatization of roads!

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

Would you like to hear or read it?

First, the Great Depression was originally started as a recession, but significant mishaps in monetary policy destabilized the economy, particularly by the Federal Reserve along with irresponsible fiscal policy by Congress. These policies in turn shrank the money supply tagged with high taxes, which then greatly exacerbated the economic situation, causing a recession to descend into the Great Depression.

Second, WWII didn't get America out of the Depression. The Depression was prolonged by large scale government spending.

The misconception of prosperity during and after the war is common relating to unemployment rates, which is not surprising considering 16 million men and women were removed during the course of the war and are not considered as labor force.

Furthermore, when an economy shifts vast amounts of production to planes, ships, guns, and etc, and treated as prosperity, then producing planes, ships and guns are indeed good economic policy even if dumped into the ocean.

Not to mention, consumer goods were rationed and standard of living was low.

If WWII was indeed the factor, then why didn’t the end of the war plunge the country back into depression, or at least another recession?

Rather, 10 million men rejoined the work force and large government spending ended after FDR's death and the end of the war.

Lastly, in 1946, economic output returned to pre-1929 levels after limited government spending.

"War prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings.” ---Ludwig von Mises

I know the difference between capitalism and Laissez-faire capitalism. TYPO.

So, where is this statistical data?<<<-------------------------

You are sadly mistaken to think that capitalism put us into the depression or Keynesian economics got us out of the depression.

If you want to use either of those services you are free to do so.

Considering the U.S. Constitution piled with a myriad of laws and regulations, how would I use UPS or Fed Ex for first class mail?

Sure, The Postal Service must combat its falling revenue, and discussing changing delivery frequency (supposed guaranteed service), as well as restructuring prepayments of retiree health benefits and other measures.

Do what most private businesses do?

In order to cut the deficit, makes some layoffs.

It is unbelievable to me that the Postal Union has a “no layoff” policy that was negotiated with the USPS.

USPS has needed bailouts from the Fed for the last 3 years. FedEx and UPS don’t need that bailout each year. Overall it would naturally be cheaper because companies adjust their size and operation cost with the demand for their product. Unlike the post office whose employees consider it a “right” to work there.

UPS and Fed Ex relation to regulations pertinent to USPS, fund retiree health benefits and Congress approval of rate increase is irrelevant because they don't need the mountain of red tape.

By the way, inflation is created by the government, more specially the Federal Reserve.

With the implications as large they are, of course not, UPS nor Fed Ex has the capacity, but it would only take time.

Way to attack me. Do you feel better? Now that you got all that hatred out. Stay on topic.

You are just mad because the USPS has become obsolete where UPS and Fed Ex could easily handle first class mail proved by clear evidence.

What does "anything else can be handled by UPS and Fed Ex either first class or package mean."

So, no, businesses wouldn't lose millions of dollars.

Postage is going up again to 46 cents. Too much of a deficit. 7 billion for 2011.

Does this sound familiar? "At the same time there has been a significant drop in lucrative first-class mail, with more and more people turning to the Internet to communicate with each other as well as to receive and pay bills." Cbs

A sure test of inefficient government owned service.

They do not have the capability as I stated and others have,this is proven by UPS and Fed-Ex contracting out their deliveries in areas they do not deliver.

Law and regulations prevent them.

I'm stating the facts as you were comparing government to private business.

Like I haven't seen that before. Those are government facts supplied by government bureacrats.

How about this: Let’s even things out by getting rid of the regulations you’re complaining about, in exchange for taking away your right to throw competitors in jail.

Whenever you propose that idea to monopolists complaining about regulation, it always meets with a stunned silence. It’s a deal regulated monopolies couldn’t possibly accept. Take away the privileged environment they’ve grown up with, and they won’t last two seconds.

All of the USPS advantages are strung up in regulations and laws, which makes it impossible for private companies to compete.

Again, why should urban people have to subside for cheap mail for rural area residents at he expense of rural area people?

There is no justification for that but redistribution of income.

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.

Universal service would be forced upon UPS and Fed-Ex if they choose to embark on delivering first class mail. First, they can't because the government says no, otherwise, they have the capability to do so if allowed.

Why should those who live in the urban areas pay for cheap mail for those in rural areas?

A government monopoly is a form of coercive monopoly in which a government agency or government corporation is the sole provider of a particular good or service and competition is prohibited by law.

Laws prevent competition.

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

You obviously have no idea what fixed costs are. fixed costs are business expenses that are not dependent on the activities of the business. They are time-related, such as salaries or rents being paid per month or electricity bill.

Where are your details on why public is better than private? Instead of pseudo example dealing with the customer base with the meaningless math, which didn't prove anything. Every industry has to deal with customer base. Giving 100% to one company doesn't prove anything, except a monopoly.

In terms of fixed costs, what company or government agency are costs not a huge percentage of their operating costs contributed to salaries? 70-80% of operating costs are salary related. That is irrelevant. Variable Costs are the determining factor of the efficiency of a company or government agency.

Why another meaningless insult trying to dumb others down by rising you up? WOW, pathetic!!

What don't you understand about what a public or coercive monopoly means?

It means that the government makes laws and regulations in favor of the USPS so that FEDEX or UPS can't compete, so they have to charge higher prices because of the unfair practices. Why can't you admit that USPS has a competitive advantage?

Comments:

1) "Ever wonder why the founding fathers put it right in the Constitution?...If you privatize the system costs WILL rise."

2) "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."

Responses:

1) The Articles of Confederation (which fed the concepts for the Constitution) stated "The United States in Congress assembled shall also have the sole and exclusive right and power of … establishing or regulating post offices from one State to another, throughout all the United States, and exacting such postage on the papers passing through the same as may be requisite to defray the expenses of the said office…". The Constitution says "Congress shall have the power...to establish post offices and post roads." Jefferson argued that the responsibility of establishing roads should be a State's responsibility and foresaw that a federal system would become a waste of money. Another thing to think about is the fact that the original postal system was from post office to post office, not house to house like it is now. It wasn't until 1863 that the post was delivered to homes as part of "Free City Delivery". Then, it wasn't until 1890 that "Rural Free Delivery" became an option.

2) I'd have to disagree with your premise. Even now, location and size determine the shipping cost of your UPS or FedEx packages. I don't think that would change. Some people would continue to pay lower costs for locations close to sorting centers. Some would pay more for locations furthest from sorting centers. Privatized companies operate on margins. Each industry has an acceptable margin of operation. If a company operates outside of those margins they tend to fail. Either they lose money because they are operating at too small of margins, or they lose money because they operate to far above the margin and competitors are operating within the margins. I would be more inclined to believe that if UPS and FedEx competed on standard mail, we would pay less for letters to certain recipients and more for others compared to current prices. I would also be more inclined to believe that either rural recipients would be required to travel to retrieve mail or the private companies would divide the destinations.

Bottom line, USPS is not only wasting postage fees, but also taxpayer's money. What is worse, requiring that a few voluntarily pay more for postage or mandate that everyone pay a little (via taxes)? USPS costs the average resident $235 per year to operate. I definitely don't get that much service out of it, so I am helping to pay for the rural recipients, which sounds too much like Socialism for my liking.

Private Postal Service doesn't mean higher prices.

As noted before, the Postal Service is a chartered, fully operated and owned corporation by the Federal Government.

What does this sentence say? Does it mention business everywhere in the sentence? No, USPS is a federal corporation, and since the Congress defined the government as not a person as private corporations are; yes, it is impossible for the USPS to be a business. It is a federal corporation. Thus, the government is enforcing the public monopoly since the USPS is doesn't apply to antitrust laws.

Lastly, how can I dispute what the Supreme Court rule on? or what Congress decided. I have no control over them.

So, if the Postal Service doesn't charge money to cover their expenses, how do they generate operating costs since they are a service?

I am glad that you are good at basic math. Congrats!

Despite the definition of the USPS, it still is a self generating revenue stream, and operational costs are pretty universal regardless whether a private corporation or government corporation.

Operational costs are such

TC=TFC+TVC------ Total Cost=Total Fixed Cost + Total Variable Costs

So, in order to understand the average cost per person that is the Average Total Cost, which is ATC=TC/Q

I understand your argument of profit making concerning operational costs, yet there could be rules and regulations restricting price increases of the private companies by price ceilings in order to deter from unfair price increases. This practice is already demonstrated in other industries. Rent Control, Gas and Food.

Considering whether the USPS is a business, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in making law; in fact, they never have. They only interpret law as it was written by Congress or federal regulators when brought to suit. They set precedent for future cases.

In the USPS v. Flamingo Industries appeals case, the question was whether the Postal Service can be sued under federal antitrust laws and not whether it is a business. Therefore, although I recognize the court as the highest court in the land, the Ninth Circuit Appeals reversed the antitrust immunity count where it ruled that 1970 Postal Reorganization Act waived the Postal Service's sovereign immunity and that it could be sued under federal antitrust laws as a "person."

As noted, the Supreme Court overturned this ruling.

Furthermore, the Sherman Act defines a person to include private corporations while Congress defined the Postal Service as a federal corporation or independent establishment so can’t be defined as a private corporation only because of Congress.

Therefore, unless Congress gives a congressional statement, which they never will, the USPS can’t be sued under the antitrust laws in accordance under the current definition of what a person is. Thus, under this current definition, the Postal Service has different goals from a private corporation since Congress defined the USPS as not a person, and thus doesn’t pursue profits as would a private corporate, but still must pursue revenue in order to operate. So, by default, then yes, it is not Private Corporation but a still a government corporation. Since the USPS is not applicable to antitrust laws, it has limited powers as those private businesses such has unilaterally setting prices or closing post offices, which often creates inefficiencies.

So, if anything, this appeals case only solidifies the public monopoly of the USPS by not only Congress declaring neither the USPS nor the government as a person, but the Supreme Court concurring with Congress’ definition of what a person is. So, since the USPS is not a person, then yes, it is not a private corporation seeking only profits, yet only because Congress established it as such, but a government corporation nonetheless due to what the Court declared as public responsibilities.

The USPS is not corporation in the private sense, but as noted before, it is a corporation owned by the federal government.

You filthy liberal - you should be locked up for your own protection!

Can't remember my scores for each division - didn't bother checking.

http://www.gotoquiz.com/results/conservative_or_liberal

96% - a hardcore conservative. You believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals.

http://www.youthink.com/quiz.cfm?action=go_detail⊂_action=take&obj;_id=116

Conservative.

Blogthings.com

You Are 55% Conservative, 45% Liberal

Social Issues: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal

Personal Responsibility: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal

Fiscal Issues: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal

Ethics: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal

Defense and Crime: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal

Studentnews

Abortion-Support Liberal

Affirmative Action-Oppose Conservative

Death Penalty-Oppose-Liberal

Economy-Free Market-Conservative

Education-School Vocuhers-Conservative

Environment- NO extreme -Conservative

Gun-RIGHT TO OWN-Conservative

Health Care-Private-Conservative

Homeland-Oppose Patriot Act-Liberal

Immigration-Increase-Liberal

Religion-Separate C and S-Liberal

Gay-Support Liberal

Social Security-Oppose Conservative

Taxes-Low Taxes-Conservative

UN-Failure-Conservative

War-Failure-Liberal

Welfare-Oppose-Conservative

Hence, Libertarian

http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/other/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/

I support perhaps two or three liberal ideas on listed in the above link.

http://www.blogthings.com/howliberalorconservativeareyouquiz/

70% conservative, 30% liberal.

Neither PrayerFails or I are conservatives - something you should have caught onto by now. My political beliefs vary greatly so as not to allow me to chose a precise party.

They're liberals - they must have some problem or other. Joe and I agree that they should be locked up in a sanitarium - for their safety and for others.

Obviously the smaller company would need to charge more than the major company. My uncle owns a delivery company - he charges nearly double what UPS charges. If he got bigger than UPS, he'd charge less. But they, along with Canada Post and a few others, are so large that there is virtually no more room for him to expand.

Correct!! What don't liberals understand about the term 'public monopoly'? A government agency is the sole provider of a particular good or service and competition is prohibited by law.

They charge more because the US postal service takes most of their business.

A competitive system integrated with the private sector could match the wasteful and inefficient system of pricing and services of a government postal service.

As of right now, I can't prove that because it's never been allowed. Public monopolies are economic fiction that defends 19th and 18th Century monopolistic privileges and has no useful place in the 21st-century American economy.

"The threat of privatization to universal mail service is a phony issue. In fact, as United Parcel Service and Federal Express demonstrate daily, universal delivery service is an objective to strive for, not retreat from. Not surprisingly, UPS and FedEx are now prepared to deliver to more homes and businesses than is the USPS." [1]

Just because you decided to call the postal service exclusively a service doesn't mean it is not a business.

As noted before, the Postal Service is a chartered, fully operated and owned corporation by the Federal Government. What don't you understand about chartered and fully operated? This is the definition of what a business is. The Postal Service is more businesslike than ever before.

Examples: Amtrak, PBS, FDIC, Americorps, FCIC and Tennessee Valley Authority.

Sure, I recognize the constitutional mandated monopoly, however, it can be repealed by a constitutional amendment.

Rules and regulations are only to prevent competition by hindering your competitors, so if the private sector was allowed entry, the government is terrified that they would undercut and outperform the USPS and render them useless. The Postal Service is not to maintain low operations for minimal cost, it is to maintain maximized cost; that is what a monopoly is regardless what type it is.

The division of customer base is not the sole reason to exclude private companies from entry into providing first class mail where a single entity is only capable of servicing. This is simply not true.

Why? There is no justification for the Postal Service to run at a loss because it is a business and not exclusively a service such as the military or law enforcement because the definition of a business is to provide goods and services to consumers in which by generating their own revenue, and the Postal Service does it already by delivering mail. It is a independent agency or business that is state owned.

The fees are a means of making a profit since they receive no tax money support as noted before; otherwise, if they didn't need to turn a profit, then it would be fair that they were subsidized by the taxpayers.

Lastly, the only reason why the system is cheap for a government postal service is because of all the rules and regulations that restricts private companies and enables the Postal Service. It is already a business, and it is a public monopoly.

By the way, I am quite aware of inflation. It is only created by your best friend, the government. How? Well, they print or ledger too much money into the economy.

Next, where is your evidence that

the real evidence of privatizing the postal service is the division of customer base while still having to replicate entire delivery systems redundantly to service the same areas a single system was capable of servicing.

I am still waiting on this response by the way.

How are the operational costs of a government postal service any different than a private postal service?

FYI, you are aware that the Postal Service does not receive any more taxpayer monetary support from the Treasury since 1971; instead, the Service is required to rely on itself to generate revenue.

There is no excuse to operate at a loss. So, it is run just like any other business except it has one huge and that is provided by Uncle Sam. The Federal Government has interpreted this clause as granting a de facto Congressional monopoly over the delivery of mail.

The biggest difference between the government and private postal service when the Postal Service is low on cash, well, to be fair, private companies do get bailouts, yet they continue to borrow money from the Fed upwards of $10 billion, but when the borrowing gets high, well, they just raise rates.

Pretty sure today is April first unless you live on Mars.

Determinants of Price Elasticity of Demand

Substitute goods

Percentage of income

Necessity

Duration

Breadth of definition

Brand loyalty

Assuming that you know the meaning and the determinants of price elasticity, how does the postal service pertain to the previous statement or were you referring to the health care statement?

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?

Since I can't apply logic by your standards, what is the difference between larger customer base and larger sales staff. More mail=More staff, More money for Medicaid=More Staff.

17,000 more IRS agents will be needed for the new health care insurance costing additional 10 billion.

any cost can be reduced by spending more money... it's fascinating really.

You should talk. The government is forcing people to buy insurance to reduce insurance costs. Seems to me the same logic.

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.

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]

Private companies generally hire less people to perform the same tasks as their public counterparts.

Wrong, went into a Best Buy the other day, and within a 10 minute period, I was asked if I needed help by 3 associates.

Are you that dense???, the only business that cannot change their prices without approval from Congress is the USPS.

USPS is not a business. It is a quasi-government independent agency, which means it is government owned service but self sustaining revenue stream.

The last post was to suggest that laws and regulations prevent any competition in first class mail, thus the prices will then always be higher in that current form, but if on a level playing field as I clearly mentioned before UPS and Fed Ex can change their prices with the market, but the USPS takes months because it is inefficient red tape toppled by mountains of protocol.

Then, do you know understand why there is universal service?

Why can UPS and Fed Ex be more efficient and effective because The Postal Service spends a whopping 78 percent of their budget on labor expenses alone, compared to 60 percent spent by United Parcel Service, and 40 percent spent by Fed Ex.

Why would I be worried about loss of service?

Think about what comes in the mail?

First, most of the first class mail is junk and advertisement. Don't need that.

Second, I have a email address. So, I don't need to send letters through the slow mail.

Third, I can pay most of my bills online.

Fourth, anything else can be handled by UPS and Fed Ex either first class or package.

UPS and FED-EX will not provide universal service at the prices they do now, it is impossible.

Are you that dense? Of course not, they can't provide the prices as does the USPS BECAUSE OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS prevent them.

It is impossible.

Now, under the socialized postal service, it is cheap because those who live in urban areas have to pay a little more for those in rural areas; otherwise, it would be exactly the same if otherwise privatized. More mail is sent in cities than rural areas; thus, more expensive for urban and less expensive for rural. That is why it is universal service.

If privatization is what you want then you must accept this and tell a large percentage of the country that they will not receive anywhere near the delivery they now do.

They would pay for what he costs if not subsidized by the urban areas.

You made an argument, then proved it wrong all by yourself in the very next sentence.

Your tactics of trying to dumb me down isn't going to make you any smarter. I didn't prove myself wrong.

You are just mad that I would like to see the military privatized. The sentence doesn't contradict. There already privatized military sectors in the United States such as Blackwater.

Where is your evidence that the real evidence of privatizing the postal service is the division of customer base while still having to replicate entire delivery systems redundantly to service the same areas a single system was capable of servicing instead of pulling it out of your ass.

So, if the Postal Service is so efficient and effective, why has the rates of gone up since the 1970's? Well, only when they need money. They raise the price of stamps. Since 1975, there has been 18 hikes in the price of a stamp. 1975-10 cents to 2009-44 cents. [1]

To the contrary, it was a statement about the potential efficacy of a privatized military since government military is inefficient. The only reason it is not privatized because of the financing situation. It is hard to quantify the correct amount to charge for defense.

Not only does the postal service public monopoly create inefficiencies, but it actually reinforces them. The postal system is pressured to preserve jobs, for example, and so it has an incentive not to take advantage of faster, more efficient technologies to transport mail.

Many believe that postal service experiences a profit loss from rural routes because carriers deliver smaller volumes of mail to a more dispersed population. However, the postal service reduces delivery costs for rural communities by delivering mail to a central pick-up location instead of providing door-to-door service. The result is that rural routes are no more costly than any other route. [1]

This type of regional mail and central pick up location would work just the same for private companies.

So, the number of places is as important as expected.