Do we need the Post Office?

[Pension_Admin]

Quote from Index piker:

Yeah and you would be too stupid to buy the stock.


Why you morons believe monopolies lower prices while simultaneously assuming true competition increases prices and lowers service is for me one of life's great mysteries (providing you know how to tie your own shoes).

Because the theories in economics are always under one assumption: ceteris paribus

For example: in economic theory, free trade suppose to make both countries better off. In the real world...well...you saw what happened with your own eyes. No ceteris paribus in the ever increasingly complex real world.

Getting rid of Post Office in theory would benefit consumer, ceteris paribus. However, in the short run (probably 5 years or more), you mail service are going to get interrupted as competitive firms enters and go bankrupt in the market. You may end up having a month worth of mails stuck in some bankrupted private mail delivery company. Or worst, the bankrupted firms decided to open all the mails and packages take all the things that are valuable, and then burn all the evidence. Since there are many competing firms, tracking your mail/package would be a nightmare, making it difficult to ensure law and regulations are in compliance in the mail delivery firms.

 

[Scataphagos]

Quote from Pension_Admin:

Because the theories in economics are always under one assumption: ceteris paribus

For example: in economic theory, free trade suppose to make both countries better off. In the real world...well...you saw what happened with your own eyes. No ceteris paribus in the ever increasingly complex real world.

America had its greatest growth and economic domination of the world when there was no free trade... virtually no competition for our products, jobs, nor consumption.

 

[Dave10110100]

Quote from Scataphagos:

America had its greatest growth and economic domination of the world when there was no free trade... virtually no competition for our products, jobs, nor consumption.

Our time of least free trade:

Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition | 2008 | The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Copyright 2008 Columbia University Press. (Hide copyright information) Copyright

Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act 1930, passed by the U.S. Congress; it brought the U.S. tariff to the highest protective level yet in the history of the United States. President Hoover desired a limited upward revision of tariff rates with general increases on farm products and adjustment of a few industrial rates. A congressional joint committee, however, in compromising the differences between a high Senate tariff bill and a higher House tariff bill, arrived at new high rates by generally adopting the increased rates of the Senate on farm products and those of the House on manufactures. Despite wide protest, the tariff act, called the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act because of its joint sponsorship by Representative Willis C. Hawley and Senator Reed Smoot, both Republicans, was signed (June, 1930) by President Hoover. The act brought retaliatory tariff acts from foreign countries, U.S. foreign trade suffered a sharp decline, and the depression intensified.

 

[Index piker]

Quote from Pension_Admin:

Because the theories in economics are always under one assumption: ceteris paribus

For example: in economic theory, free trade suppose to make both countries better off. In the real world...well...you saw what happened with your own eyes. No ceteris paribus in the ever increasingly complex real world.

Getting ride of Post Office in theory would benefit consumer, ceteris paribus. However, in the short run (probably 5 years or more), you mail service are going to get interrupted as competitive firms enters and go bankrupts in the market. You may end up having a month worth of mails stuck in some bankrupted private mail delivery company. Or worst, the bankrupted firms decided to open all the mails and packages take all the things that are valuable, and then burn all the evidence. Since there are many competing firms, tracking your mail/package would be a nightmare, making it difficult to ensure law and regulations are in compliance in the mail delivery firms.

With that as an example of your logic one can only assume you have problems with trading and personal finance: laying off the crack pipe (of marxism) literally and (figuratively) would help.

 

[hermit]

Quote from Pension_Admin:

Because the theories in economics are always under one assumption: ceteris paribus

For example: in economic theory, free trade suppose to make both countries better off. In the real world...well...you saw what happened with your own eyes. No ceteris paribus in the ever increasingly complex real world.

Getting rid of Post Office in theory would benefit consumer, ceteris paribus. However, in the short run (probably 5 years or more), you mail service are going to get interrupted as competitive firms enters and go bankrupt in the market. You may end up having a month worth of mails stuck in some bankrupted private mail delivery company. Or worst, the bankrupted firms decided to open all the mails and packages take all the things that are valuable, and then burn all the evidence. Since there are many competing firms, tracking your mail/package would be a nightmare, making it difficult to ensure law and regulations are in compliance in the mail delivery firms.

Good Point.

 

[Pension_Admin]

Quote from Index piker:

With that as an example of your logic one can only assume you have problems with trading and personal finance: laying off the crack pipe (of marxism) literally and (figuratively) would help.

Let's hear your counter argument related to my point about mail delivery service.

If you want to engage in personal discussion about me, start another thread.

Thanks!

 

[tmarket]

Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution, known as the Postal Clause or the Postal Power, empowers Congress "To establish Post Offices and post Roads".

It is strange that no conservatives will defend the USPS when it is clearly stated in the US Constitution - no debate. You never hear any conservatives say 'don't mess with the Post Offices, our founding fathers had stated unequivocally that they should exist and roads and properties shall be set aside for their existence.'

 

[Index piker]

Quote from Pension_Admin:

Because the theories in economics are always under one assumption: ceteris paribus

1)For example: in economic theory, free trade suppose to make both countries better off.

2)Getting rid of Post Office in theory would benefit consumer, ceteris paribus. However, in the short run (probably 5 years or more), you mail service are going to get interrupted as competitive firms enters and go bankrupt in the market. You may end up having a month worth of mails stuck in some bankrupted private mail delivery company. Or worst, the bankrupted firms decided to open all the mails and packages take all the things that are valuable, and then burn all the evidence. 3) Since there are many competing firms, tracking your mail/package would be a nightmare, making it difficult to ensure law and regulations are in compliance in the mail delivery firms.

1) Maybe you misunderstand free trade.

2) That does not seem to be the case for parcel delivery and it's asinine to think the one entity living exclusively on the teat of the taxpayer is holding the whole sector together.


3) My packages track just fine competition won't negatively affect that.

 

[Pension_Admin]

Quote from Index piker:

1) Maybe you misunderstand free trade.

2) That does not seem to be the case for parcel delivery and it's asinine to think the one entity living exclusively on the teat of the taxpayer is holding the whole sector together.


3) My packages track just fine competition won't negatively affect that.

1) No misunderstanding.

2) The function of parcel delivery service is different from the Post Office. We are comparing apple to orange. Also, it's hard to imagine service without interruption as firms goes bankrupt in the competitive market place.

3) That's because you've paid for this tracking service for the package. What if it is not a package, but a piece of mail? Are you still going to put a tracking on it? What if that piece of mail has sentimental value?

 

[Index piker]

Quote from Pension_Admin:

1) No misunderstanding.

2) The function of parcel delivery service is different from the Post Office.

3) That's because you've paid for this tracking service for the package. What if it is not a package, but a piece of mail? Are you still going to put a tracking on it? What if that piece of mail has sentimental value?

2) Really what's the difference that the USPS sells money orders?

3) Then what's your point you don't track every piece of USPS mail as it is anyway so why would it matter if a private letter delivery did not either?

Now if you could address why you believe or retorted with your nonsense :" monopolies lower prices while simultaneously assuming true competition increases prices and lowers service"