Re: [NTLK] [OT?] USPS (was Spam?)

Dan,
Thanks for the correction about the USPS. I've been too busy until
this moment to comment on any of the inaccuracies I've seen recently.
The three things that I feel compelled to add my $.02 about are:
1) The USPS has an obligation to provide pick up and delivery service
to all customers, as well as exclusive rights to place items in
patrons mailboxes (whether they be a PO box or a rural mailbox, I
think mail slots in doors are excluded) and sole rights to deliver
first-class letters except in "urgent" cases. Wikipedia has a very
good summary.
2) One element that drives costs of goods and services up higher for
businesses over the same by governements is profit. Profit is a good
thing, but when a company can't maintain their margins, they and their
goods and services disappear from the marketplace. So perhaps it's a
very good thing that companies like DHL were never given access to the
monopoly currently held by the USPS.
3) I don't know of anyone that truly wants to have the "true cost" of
goods and services they use reflected in the price they pay. Whether
transportation, food, education, police services, fire services,
manufacturing, health care, or even having one's car repaired after a
collision, no one really wants to pay the true cost out of pocket.
Some people think that they want that, but there's always something
they are ignoring or don't know what the true costs are. This
especially applies to the Newton MP given what Apple sunk into R&D. If
all of us had to pay the true cost of design and production of (for
some us, many) Newtons, most could not afford it.

There, I even brought this discussion back to our green friends!
ken

On Jul 22, 2009, at 9:46 AM, Dan wrote:

> On 7/22/2009 2:29 AM, James Fraser wrote:
>
>> If a private carrier could deliver mail for $0.25 per piece, is
>> that a more efficient carrier? We'll never know unless the USPS
>> gives them a chance. Likewise, a private carrier could end up
>> charging *more* because, unlike a government entity, it cannot go
>> to the taxpayers for more money if it does not meet its costs. So
>> if the *true economic cost* of mail delivery to a given area is, in
>> fact, higher than the current, possibly artificially low price,
>> then postal customers in that area can probably look forward to
>> paying higher prices (i.e. have the true cost of the service they
>> are using reflected in the price they have to pay).
>
> Ok on this I must comment on. The USPS does not take taxpayers money.
> While it is a government run entity the only money it receives
> currently
> is postage. It has been this way for a long time (since the 1970's
> anyway, I forget the exact date but I think it is much longer).
>
> Granted they are in trouble now and it has been said they may run
> out of
> money before the end of the year. With the recession and the other
> parcel carriers they have been hit hard. However they also have very
> good benefits (again being government) for their employees. They may
> have to drop these perks or make other changes to survive. Either
> that
> or they will need a bailout (and this would be tax payers money). I
> hope that changes are made instead of a bailout.
>
> -Dan
>
> ====================================================================
> 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/
> ====================================================================
>
>
>

====================================================================
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 Wed Jul 22 10:19:22 2009