Re:The Billionaire Behind Efforts to Kill the U.S. Postal Se...
by AnthonyMouse on Tuesday July 21, 2020 @08:42PM
(#23912645)
> Rather they extend their networks to match USPS because they wish to attain feature parity with the USPS.
But that doesn't even make sense. If it costs more to ship to a particular address, they have no reason to refuse to do it rather than simply charge an amount that causes it to still be profitable and then turn a profit in doing so.
> This is the case with many smaller parcel carriers.
Presumably because they know they don't have any operations there at all, and so the price they would have to charge wouldn't make them competitive with even FedEx and UPS. That proves nothing about whether the bigger carriers wouldn't still do it when they're positioned to offer the most competitive price.
> That is in fact generally how it works but even still the postage rates for rural areas are subsidized by urban areas.
But why is that a good thing? Cross-subsidies are inefficient. People in urban areas can be just as poor as people in rural areas, especially given the higher cost of living. And if you really want a subsidy like that then make it explicit -- and maybe pay for it on the backs of people who can afford it rather than people who can't.
But that doesn't even make sense. If it costs more to ship to a particular address, they have no reason to refuse to do it rather than simply charge an amount that causes it to still be profitable and then turn a profit in doing so.
> This is the case with many smaller parcel carriers.
Presumably because they know they don't have any operations there at all, and so the price they would have to charge wouldn't make them competitive with even FedEx and UPS. That proves nothing about whether the bigger carriers wouldn't still do it when they're positioned to offer the most competitive price.
> That is in fact generally how it works but even still the postage rates for rural areas are subsidized by urban areas.
But why is that a good thing? Cross-subsidies are inefficient. People in urban areas can be just as poor as people in rural areas, especially given the higher cost of living. And if you really want a subsidy like that then make it explicit -- and maybe pay for it on the backs of people who can afford it rather than people who can't.