|
CharlestheHammer posted:FedEx and USP do not want to do what the USPS does. That’s what’s weird about this Remove the prefunding requirement, allow a privatized USPS to charge, say, twice as much across the board as it does now. And, gently caress it, say they only have to do daily deliveries to people within X miles of a post office; it'll piss the people who live in the turbo-sticks off but who care, what are they going to do, vote Democratic? Boom, it's a profitable enterprise, ready to be gobbled up by wall street.
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 20:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 05:22 |
|
|
I mean the current procedures allow private companies to piggyback off of USPS infrastructure without doing the lovely stuff it does. If anything privatizing it might lose them money
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 20:36
|
|
|
privatizing usps would have massive knock-on effects for every other delivery service and would result in large price increases across the board that would impact basically every business in a negative sense so ofc Wall Street is into it but I can’t quite figure out why anyone else would be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 20:42
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:privatizing usps would have massive knock-on effects for every other delivery service and would result in large price increases across the board that would impact basically every business in a negative sense does anyone else matter?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 20:45
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:I mean the current procedures allow private companies to piggyback off of USPS infrastructure without doing the lovely stuff it does. exactly, privatization is for looting the parts of the government that regular people benefit from, or for contracting out your crimes to evade government transparency laws. usps is too valuable for existing companies to loot, it's basic infrastructure aka socialism for people and corporations alike
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 21:08
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:privatizing usps would have massive knock-on effects for every other delivery service and would result in large price increases across the board that would impact basically every business in a negative sense I think the right wing wants to be hurt more so they can blame that hurt on others. Corona isn't enough.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 21:12
|
|
|
capitalism is anything but rational ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 21:34
|
|
|
"gently caress YOU, YOU LIKE USPS, gently caress USPS"
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 22:02
|
|
|
I think something people forget is it’s not all number go up with capitalists. Some really believe in the ideas themselves. remember that clip of Romney muttering government can’t create jobs to himself? he believed that
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 22:06
|
|
|
when you repeat the "privatization makes everything better" lie often enough you start believing it
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 23:37
|
|
|
It also deeply offends Republicans when they realize that there exist effective and popular government services. They instinctively destroy them, even if there's no immediate advantage or profit in doing so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 23:40
|
|
|
Boxman posted:Remove the prefunding requirement, allow a privatized USPS to charge, say, twice as much across the board as it does now. And, gently caress it, say they only have to do daily deliveries to people within X miles of a post office; it'll piss the people who live in the turbo-sticks off but who care, what are they going to do, vote Democratic? This is playing into their talking points. USPS is a vital public service and the amount of profit it makes doesn't loving matter. We don't sit here making sure that the Army has a solid ROI
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 02:38
|
|
|
MunchE posted:This is playing into their talking points. USPS is a vital public service and the amount of profit it makes doesn't loving matter. We don't sit here making sure that the Army has a solid ROI eh, depends on what return you're expecting
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 02:41
|
|
|
the "losses" in profit on the balance sheet of the USPS are the savings we get when we use its services at a much lower rate than the market demands. A "profitable" post would not only be far shittier for the people actually doing the work, but it'd be far more expensive for the people using it. Literally made worse in every single way for no other reason than no prevailing political ideology that is tolerated to exist by the rich will accept the existence of something that doesn't have a big fat rich motherfucker at the very top doing nothing but stealing value from all the activity below
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 02:45
|
|
|
if the "free market" were able to deliver a better service than the USPS at a lower rate it would already be doing that. It both cannot and is not even willing. If the USPS goes there is no benevolent service that will stand in to service unprofitable routes or systems, they just stop being serviced
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 02:47
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:if the "free market" were able to deliver a better service than the USPS at a lower rate it would already be doing that. It both cannot and is not even willing. If the USPS goes there is no benevolent service that will stand in to service unprofitable routes or systems, they just stop being serviced lol gonna own when everyone in 2024 blames Obama for the loss of the USPS
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 02:52
|
|
|
remember when k-mart was poised to become amazon but instead the randian superman who ran it decided to make all the departments fight each other and now it's dead in the water in america lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 02:55
|
|
|
Pittsburgh Fentanyl Cloud posted:lol gonna own when everyone in 2024 blames Obama for the loss of the USPS it really doesn't help that we've already got prominent Dem commentators loudly making GBS threads all over Bernie trying to blame him, citing Bernie blocking (at the request of the USPS union) BoG appointees that sought first and foremost to do all this lmao I think the Dems are pinned into a corner on this one so are going to do the bare minimum to save it, but there's nothing about the New Democrats to dominate leadership that would lead me to believe that any of them actually want the USPS to be saved from being gutted and its assets sold for pennies to their donors. The Republicans, of course, despise it for similar reasons but are just more honest about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 02:56
|
|
|
Kitfox88 posted:remember when k-mart was poised to become amazon but instead the randian superman who ran it decided to make all the departments fight each other and now it's dead in the water in america The Sears story was pretty funny like how the Company had it's own internal facebook knock-off and the CEO made multiple alt accounts to spy on people / or just start flame wars.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 02:56
|
|
|
Pittsburgh Fentanyl Cloud posted:lol gonna own when everyone in 2024 blames Obama for the loss of the USPS well maybe he should've tried to appoint people who weren't trying to privatize it and deregulate it when he had the opportunity
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 02:57
|
|
|
A profitable post would be what we have in Britain, which is shittier then what we had a few years ago
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 03:02
|
|
|
canada post was profitable at one point so harper appointed a toadie that immediately tripled executive salaries and slashed pensions. now it sucks and we don't even get door delivery for regular mail anymore
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 03:07
|
|
|
The whole point of public utilities is that the state spends money in order to improve society, which generates wealth, which is returned to the state in taxes at a later date. And those taxes are usually more than enough to balance out any initial losses. I used to have a big effortpost for QANTAS, which used to be wholly owned by the Australian government. But, in short, QANTAS would fly out tourists from all over the world for less than the cost of the fuel it took to get them here. But while the tourists were here, they would spend thousands of dollars. Those dollars would support the tourist industry, employing around 5% of the adult population of this country and bringing in billions in taxes. In the long run, QANTAS was making this country money hand over foot, but short-sighted politicians and media pundits killed it and sold off its corpse because it was "too expensive". Of course, tourists still come to Australia (well, not right now) but they have to spent a lot more to get here. That's money which goes straight to overseas shareholders rather than staying in-country.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 05:01
|
|
|
Megillah Gorilla posted:The whole point of public utilities is that the state spends money in order to improve society, which generates wealth, which is returned to the state in taxes at a later date. And those taxes are usually more than enough to balance out any initial losses. No, the point of public utilities is not to generate tax revenue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 05:02
|
|
|
Do you think Trump's brother voted for him?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 05:07
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:the "losses" in profit on the balance sheet of the USPS are the savings we get when we use its services at a much lower rate than the market demands. A "profitable" post would not only be far shittier for the people actually doing the work, but it'd be far more expensive for the people using it. Literally made worse in every single way for no other reason than no prevailing political ideology that is tolerated to exist by the rich will accept the existence of something that doesn't have a big fat rich motherfucker at the very top doing nothing but stealing value from all the activity below what would it even look like if the USPS consistently ran a profit at an excellent level of service? they don't have a mandate to horde a huge pile of cash or expand into new business areas, and they don't have stockholders or issue dividends. the GOP would be demanding they cut prices to break-even levels, and for once they'd be right to do so
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 05:08
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Do you think Trump's brother voted for him? NYT obit posted:“I support Donald 1,000 percent,” he told The New York Post in 2016. “If he were to need me in any way, I’d be there. Anything I could do to help.”
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 05:15
|
|
|
etalian posted:The Sears story was pretty funny like how the Company had it's own internal facebook knock-off and the CEO made multiple alt accounts to spy on people / or just start flame wars. oh right it was sears not kmart
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 05:22
|
|
|
Suspicious posted:when you repeat the "privatization makes everything better" lie often enough you start believing it Indeed. Plenty of true believers. https://twitter.com/ACTBrigitte/status/1294024557179932684?s=19
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 05:28
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:No, the point of public utilities is not to generate tax revenue. quote:the state spends money in order to improve society
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 05:38
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 06:02
|
|
|
solve it by refusing to deliver at all to anything more than 35 miles from a distribution center lmao
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 08:25
|
|
|
etalian posted:The Sears story was pretty funny like how the Company had it's own internal facebook knock-off and the CEO made multiple alt accounts to spy on people / or just start flame wars.  i didn't hear this part before
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 13:12
|
|
|
OhFunny posted:Indeed. Plenty of true believers. this woman has never touched a cardboard box in her entire life
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 14:30
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:
finally a CEO I can relate to!
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 15:09
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:the "losses" in profit on the balance sheet of the USPS are the savings we get when we use its services at a much lower rate than the market demands. A "profitable" post would not only be far shittier for the people actually doing the work, but it'd be far more expensive for the people using it. Literally made worse in every single way for no other reason than no prevailing political ideology that is tolerated to exist by the rich will accept the existence of something that doesn't have a big fat rich motherfucker at the very top doing nothing but stealing value from all the activity below yeah this. People forget very easily that "profits" in business don't magically come from nowhere, they come from people spending money on the things the business is selling. Maybe that's other businesses, but for consumer-facing businesses it comes from consumers. Profit in a consumer-facing business means the consumers are paying more money than the goods or services they're purchasing cost to make. And we consider that essential in a market economy because if you aren't making profit then the guy who owns the business isn't getting richer, and that's a travesty because the whole point of business is for the guy at the top to get richer. If you're a non-profit or some other kind of incorporated entity, then turning a profit isn't necessarily a good thing because there might not be a guy at the top whose only goal is to get richer, and turning a profit might mean the different purpose of your organization is not being fulfilled--what would it mean for a charity, for example, to run a profit? Now apply this same logic to government services. For a consumer-facing government service like USPS to run a profit, it means USPS is charging people more money than it costs to deliver the mail. If USPS runs a deficit, it means USPS is charging people less money than it costs to deliver the mail, and theoretically therefore subsidizing the people who use the mail, which is the kind of thing a government can do for things it considers essential or important for a functioning society (another good example is transportation. Years ago in Canada there was a big controversy when Greyhound discontinued a bunch of unprofitable low-volume lines to rural areas, which left those rural areas completely without any public transportation to other parts of the country. A government-run transportation service could theoretically decide that it was worth running unprofitable transportation to those areas as a public service, but a for-profit company like Greyhound inevitably decided that it wasn't worth it on the balance sheet). So why focus on government services running a profit? All that really means is that the service is overcharging people, impoverishing them through user fees for something that's theoretically supposed to be a public service. You can argue that in this case the government is the guy at the top who wants to get richer, and profit-making services contribute to the overall state budget. But for a consumer-facing service like USPS that profit is still coming from users of the service, who are taxpayers and other residents. In the end it's basically the same thing, but in the opposite direction, as if you raised people's taxes and made USPS free, in the end the money is still coming from the people of the country. The question is, which people. The difference is that demanding consumer-facing government services make a profit has several knock-on effects: 1) it raises user fees, which are a regressive form of funding public services. If you make stamps cost more so that USPS turns a profit, that means people who mail things with USPS pay more while people who don't mail things with USPS are unaffected. Since USPS is usually the lowest-cost shipping option, this means taking more money from poor people using it while not affecting rich people who use FedEx or UPS or other forms of package delivery. User fees are also not proportional (USPS does not ask you your annual income before selling you stamps, stamps cost the same for everyone) so they're basically a flat tax, and therefore disproportionately affect the poor. Another good example here is public transportation--if you raise fares for taking the bus, that means bus riders pay more while car drivers are unaffected. 2) demanding a profit from a user-fee-funded business, so that that profit can subsidize the state budget, is a form of upwards wealth redistribution because it takes the user fees paid disproportionately by poor people and then uses them to subsidize state spending that would otherwise have to be funded through other sources, like progressive income taxation. You're using a flat-tax model of user fees to add revenue to the state, which is regressive. Imagine the alternative, which would be raising progressive taxation mechanisms and lowering USPS fees--this would subsidize the poor people who use USPS by making the wealthy fund its services. So obviously it's unacceptable to corporate politicians. If we apply the public-transportation comparison again, it's like raising fares instead of increasing funding for a bus system, instead of raising funding from general taxation and reducing fares or even making transit free. 3) it encourages people to think about public service in a commodified, free-market mindset where the only thing that matters is turning a profit. That the profit is coming from the very people of that society is irrelevant, because demanding everything turn a profit is part of normalizing the neoliberal market narrative that competition makes everything more efficient and that only the profit motive makes society function. The idea of a public service spending money because it improves society is anathema to a model of the world that wants every human interaction to be a monetary competition, uses profit and loss as the yardstick for who's winning each interaction, and believes in a dog-eat-dog version of meritocracy where if you make a profit you deserve to live and if you make a loss you deserve to die. If you think about it for more than a second, you realize that in this paradigm that means USPS is winning against its own customers, who are the general public and therefore the people it's set up to benefit, but if you don't think about it at all then it means USPS is winning in general and therefore deserves to survive. 4) it makes the public service easy to privatize. If the service is already turning a profit, it's easy to sell to politicians' rich friends who already know it's easy rent-seeking money even if they do nothing to it, and expect they'll make even more money if they use the power and logic of the free market to crush unions, cut pensions, end unprofitable but net-social-positive aspects of the service, and otherwise ruthlessly drive down costs by making the service worse. It's also easy to justify to the public because you're talking about the service in business language of profit and loss rather than public-service language of benefit to society, and you can tell the public that by selling this profitable business you're getting a huge one-time sum to balance the budget or spend on something else. After all, profitable businesses get sold back and forth all the time in the free market, so why not public services too? In short, demanding public services turn a profit is a fool's errand, a regressive policy, and an example of neoliberal logic applied to something that could otherwise be seen as a public good paid for by society because it benefits society.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 15:35
|
|
|
OhFunny posted:Indeed. Plenty of true believers. For-profit mule teams bringing saddlebags of mail into remote mountain towns at 55 cents/letter for 200 people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 16:18
|
|
|
OhFunny posted:Indeed. Plenty of true believers. Orb Mother is in those replies loving her up 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 16:31
|
|
|
For anyone who wants to read up on the Eddie Lampert saga, Bloomberg had a great long article about it that they eventually put behind a paywall so I paid and copy/pasted it into a Google doc to share: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aOUusa2Q9qPN4n8ZbFUNpmMiQmHu7rJRNFhuBmAYkw4/
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 16:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 05:22 |
|
|
nikosoft posted:Orb Mother is in those replies loving her up I'm trying to be ready that Marrianne may be the left choice for 2024 that gets suppressed for some right wing poo poo
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 16:48
|
|
