Re: [NTLK] [OT?] Spam?

Hello,

--- On Sun, 7/19/09, John Chu <johnchu@acm.org> wrote:

>It's only a disingenuous example if FedEx or UPS were capable of this in >the first place, and the only reason they don't offer the service is >because of Federal law.

Sorry, "the *only* reason they don't offer the service is because of Federal law?" Um, I think that's a pretty compelling reason not to offer a service, don't you? @_@

Try offering a service that's against Federal law sometime and tell us what happens to you. ;)

>All of the proposals I've seen for privatizing first class mail retreat on >service time, price, or doorstep to doorstep delivery.

Well, so long as the USPS inists on maintaining its monopoly, that's all those proposals will ever be: words on paper. Why doesn't the USPS choose to open up the market and see for itself just how inferior private firms are when delivering mail?

If they are truly inferior, the USPS is risking nothing, right?

>The postal system is one of those cases where a government run service >actually works well enough.

My point is that the USPS "works" because it is artificially protected from competition through legislation, not because it is forced to maintain efficiency by market pressures.

No one can say how well the USPS would or would not work against a private sector entity because a private sector entity is not allowed to compete with the USPS by law.
 
> BTW, IIRC, the monopoly pre-dates Lysander Spooner. He chose to challenge >it. It wasn't enacted because of him.

Well, he must have challenged it successfully, because in 1851, Congress reduced the postal rate to 3 cents a letter. Unfortunately for Spooner, the same act that lowered the rates also contained a clause that locked in the government's monopoly on delivering mail. Something that would hardly have been necessary if it were locked in in the first place.

>(It's also not clear to me that he provided doorstep to doorstep service.)

Presumably, if Spooner offered an inferior service, the USPS would not have lost money and there wouldn't have been anything for them to worry about. But they *did* lose lots of money when Spooner showed up which, apparently, is why they sought to beat him through government fiat rather than by trying to out-compete him.

>For that matter, the postal service of the 1840's is not the modern postal
>service in at least one significant way for the purposes of this
>discussion. Modern postal rates are highly regulated.

Markets are good at regulating prices, too. I'm a lot less impressed with prices that are laid down by government fiat (how do they know what prices to set, exactly?) than I am by prices that have been established by participation in a free and open market (i.e. one that is open to competition).

The price of spaghetti hoops is not subject to government regulation. Despite this, I am not charged $10 a can for spaghetti hoops. The people who make spaghetti hoops know full well that if they raise their price too high, people will stop buying their product. So, instead, they must offer their product at a price that consumers are willing to pay, and that will allow the producers to meet their expenses.

This is how markets determine what prices can be charged for what goods and it works all the time (ask Vernon Smith).

>In any case, all you have is speculation on how FedEx and UPS might deal >with first class mail.

That's correct. Because, as I have pointed out, the USPS shows no sign whatsoever of relinquishing the monopoly it enjoys.

If it does not need a monopoly to survive, surely the USPS would have no qualms about surrendering it after enjoying it for more than 150 years, yes?

>That you're certain that surely they'd do it at least as well as the >postal is not exactly a sound foundation for argument.

This is what I said:

>And I'm confident the USPS won't be relinquishing that monopoly anytime >soon, seeing as how UPS and FedEx have demonstrated an ability to deliver >packages at competitive rates. I doubt they're going to be afforded the >opportunity to try to do the same thing with First Class Mail. :)

You'll note that *nowhere* do the words "certain" and "surely" appear in the above text: those are words that you yourself are using. I said, instead, that UPS and FedEx compete effectively with the USPS in delivering packages. I then went on to say that it was doubtful the USPS was going to give them a chance to compete with them in delivering mail as well.

Kindly do not put words in my mouth.

>Like I said, the government running something is not a guarantor of >efficiency or inefficiency.

The only way to tell if an entity is truly working efficiently is to subject it to market pressures (i.e. competition). This is something that the USPS will not do. And as long as they insist on maintaining their monopoly on First Class Mail delivery, we have no way of telling just how "efficient" they are, because *there is nothing to compare them with.*

I, too, can claim to be operating "efficiently" if I am operating in a vacuum provided by government fiat.

>It doesn't make sense to throw together any old list government run >services to prove one's point.

Well then, I guess it's just as well that I didn't "throw together any old list." I've only talked about the USPS and the American Mail Company. A previous poster had a short list, but that wasn't me.

I have tried to point out that the USPS maintains a monopoly, that no one else is allowed to compete with them within that protected market space, and that they show little sign of opening up that market space to competitors anytime soon. Can we agree on these points, at least?

I agree that my speculation is just that: speculation. But it remains so, and will remain so, until the USPS functions as a true business, rather than as a quasi-government agency that is protected in its market space by legislation and *not* by performing as a true business.

Businesses protect themselves by doing an equal or better job than their competitors in providing a service that consumers have a choice of either paying them to perform, or paying a *competitor* to perform. That set of conditions does not exist in the case of the USPS.

Best,

James Fraser

====================================================================
The NewtonTalk Mailing List - http://www.newtontalk.net/
The Official Newton FAQ - http://www.splorp.com/newton/faq/
The Newton Glossary - http://www.splorp.com/newton/glossary/
WikiWikiNewt - http://tools.unna.org/wikiwikinewt/
====================================================================
Received on Sun Jul 19 20:27:43 2009