Government's abject incompetence: A quick example

[TheLegalImmigrant05]

Bottom line is: the government is incompetent and can't run a business, i.e. can't provide a service at the best price with the best quality for consumers. Factors contributing to that are the innate corrupting nature of government (any government), monopoly leading to absence of healthy competitive pressures to do a better job for customers, and government's tendency to attract mediocrity.

[ZangaroZen]

Your logic is flawed. Let's say your family's $80 annual postage usage is indeed the average. Let's say the $6B lost is divided by every citizen. What does it prove? It only proves you've completely ignored the largest user of postage services, private industry, and skewed the numbers hopelessly.

[TheLegalImmigrant05]

Of course it's flawed, and I will be the first to admit it. However, this is not a definitive proof of anything, but rather a simple illustration. And my logic being flawed does not negate the fact that the USPS is $6B in the red this year. This fact can only be explained by their completely misreading the market and their own competitive position in it, i.e. their utter incompetence in running a delivery business.

[ZangaroZen]

@TheLegalImmigrant05, OK you admit your logic is flawed. Case closed.

Yes the USPS is $6B in the hole, the question is what to do about it?

a. raise the shipping rates

b. turn everything over to private industry

c. another solution?

Canada's government postal system is run as a "crown corporation", and has made billions in profits for over the last decade. They bought out Purolator Courier which competes with FedEx and UPS.

Maybe USPS needs to emulate Canada Post.

[TheLegalImmigrant05]

What to do with USPS's losses should not be my problem as a taxpayer. Since the bottom 50% hardly pay any income taxes in this country, those of us who do subsidize them every time they buy a postage stamp. That's wrong.

The solution is to lift the monopoly on first class mail and to stop subsidizing USPS. Then, if they lose money, they will have to find efficiencies, fire people, etc - in other words, do what any business does. But if they are not subsidized, they should really be privatized.

[ZangaroZen]

@TheLegalImmigrant05, you're missing the point of having a national postal service which is the norm in every developed country.

The point is to substidize. Why? Because otherwise it would be economically unfeasible to provide mail to outside large urban areas. It's a cost of keeping a nation united and together. Same goes for roads.

The problem I have with USPS is the same problem I have with any government organization, a lack of self induced efficiency, ie the school system.

[TheLegalImmigrant05]

No subsidies does not mean no deliveries to remote areas, it simply means that mail in remote areas will be more expensive. Nothing wrong with that.

[ZangaroZen]

@theLegalImmigrant05, without a unified postal service, it would mean outside of large urban areas, mail would be more then "more expensive" but in many cases prohibitively expensive. Run the whole country like that and you'd have many categories of citizens.

Personally I support the fact that mailing a letter costs the same no matter where you are in a strong unified country. One of the prices of nationhood.

[TheLegalImmigrant05]

What is a principal difference between varying costs of mailing a letter and varying costs of gasoline? Most people I know fill up their tanks more often than they mail envelopes. Why is suddenly the uniform price of a postage stamp the measure of nationhood? What is your rationale here? Why do different prices per gallon of gas not create "different categories of citizens"? Where is the logic?

Costs of life in different areas are and should be different. That includes mail.

[ZangaroZen]

@theLegalImmigrant05, gasoline is a commodity that fluctuates with supply and demand, even though state taxes can have a large helping or hindering effect.

The USPS is meant to be accessible to all, and for simplicity, efficiency and promotion reasons the post per letter, or ounce is set to an average.

[TheLegalImmigrant05]

You are missing the point of my question. What is so special about postal services that makes them qualitatively different from gasoline? Both are essential; I would argue that gasoline is more essential to many, at least no less essential. Yet somehow you insist that price for postage be uniform to all, and are seem to have no problem with gasoline prices varying based on location. Why?

[ZangaroZen]

@TheLegalImmigrant05, you're missing my point.

What is so special about postal services?

"The USPS is meant to be accessible to all [equally], and for simplicity, efficiency and promotion reasons the cost per letter, or ounce is set to an average."

Seem to have no problem with gasoline prices varying based on location. Why?

"gasoline is a commodity that fluctuates with supply and demand, even though state taxes can have a large helping or hindering effect."

[JMBSM61]

There is nothing that the Government does better than the private sector. Nada, Zip, Zero.

[ZangaroZen]

@JMBSM61, if that was true, then explain to me why countries facing annihilation when it's critical to be absolutely efficient, rely on government run military to try and save themselves.

[TheLegalImmigrant05]

Just because Government has a monopoly on armed forces does not make it efficient - Pentagon is notoriously inefficient in procurement (remember $600 toilet seats for the army)

Maybe the tradeoffs of not having gov't monopoly on armed forces outweigh the inefficiencies. Does not mean those inefficiencies do not exist.

[ZangaroZen]

@TheLegalImmigrant05, every large entity has gross inefficiencies, as well as efficient economies of scale.

No I don't remember the $600 army toilets, besides quote mining examples does not provide an overwelming trend.

I do know that military training is the most respected job training experience around. We also can look to history, and realize that an efficient government can take a basket case economy, military, etc and turn it around faster then private industry ever could.

[TheLegalImmigrant05]

Not sure what your point is. That government is not inefficient? or that military procurement is efficient? I have not convinced you that government is hugely inefficient in most cases. Fine, you are certainly entitled to your opinions.

Large entities do have more inefficiencies than small ones, but their problem is not size per se, but the problem of knowledge. I recommend reading Hayek.

[ZangaroZen]

@theLegalImmigrant05, yes government can be inefficient, and this is because government does not have efficiency incentives built in. The schooling system is a great example of gross inefficencies.

A strong government can be extremely efficient, take the German build up from 1933-36.

Organization size is a huge problem dispite inefficiencies. A monopoly like WalMart crushes businesses every where they go.

[JMBSM61]

Because a private military is a really dumb idea.Duh. I will point out that the military is not in the business of turning a profit or even breaking even. The Military is a money eating necessity.

[ZangaroZen]

@JMBSM61, yes the military is a money eating necessity. However historically some militaries were in the business of making money, ie mercenary armies. Problem is a government run military is still far more efficient and pratical, but if it wasn't every government would sub-contract their military needs out.