Yes, I know you wouldn't phrase it that way, but it is what it boils down to.
The counterargument is the simple fact that as the system is working and structured now, we can't afford it.
An awful lot of the problem with the way we've been responding to this economic crisis is the way that people have been acting as if we can just wish for nice things that we can't afford, and somehow it'll all just work out. Car companies may be losing money by the billions, but it sure would be nice if they made a profit, so let's wish a few more billion at them to lose, rather than making the hard decisions. It sure would be nice if the postal system could make money without making the hard decisions, so let's wish a few more billion at them.
At some point, you have to make the hard decisions. People spit at the word "profit" because of the various (mostly stupid) negative connotations given to it, but remember that no matter how socialist or even communist you may be, SOMETHING has to make a profit! Whether it's a profit in money or a profit in credits or a profit in sweet, sweet love, something has to generate more value than the effort you put into it, or you have no money or credits or love to subsidize your other desires with.
Now, if you make the right hard decisions, we can probably keep universal service. The article has several constructive suggestions. But some hard decisions will have to be made. (And for all the exciting rhetoric from the Obama administration about making hard decisions, I can't hardly name one actually hard decision he's made, rather than wishing more taxpayer money at things that make no money.) Individually, maybe we could afford a postal service that loses billions, but against an economy where everything is having trouble, we probably need to go to a model where the post office at least breaks even... and if that means losing something "nice", well, so be it.
That is an awesome insight, it really cuts through all of the noise.
If it weren't for the universal service requirement .. But personally, I like getting my mail no matter where I live.
This part I question .. shouldn't people who live in expensive to serve places and/or people who want to send mail to those places pay for the costs that they're imposing on the system?
A public good is not just a good you want the government to provide, the term actually has a meaning.
And, frankly, the idea that my letter excludes your letter from the carrier's mailbag is laughable. No, they cannot fit in the same physical space, but there's room for more than one letter in the bag/carrier/truck.
Compare this to a real public good, e.g. national defense. National defense is non-rivalrous because me enjoying living in a non-communist country does not hinder you enjoying the same thing.
As for the postman being a romantic figure, not sure how that fits into the question of whether mail delivery is a public good or not.
I'd be happy if the money that is going to keep the postal service subsidized instead went into subsidizing universal internet access.
Ignoring the market doesn't make costs & benefits disappear. In fact the author argues that's what got them into this fix.
Postage works exactly the same way. No matter how expensive it is to get a package to you, you pay a fixed rate for it. However, you also pay proportional to the cost you impose on the system is that you pay per package.
Actually, you do pay for untilities based on how expensive it is to get to you. The local power folks won't run a line to whereever you happen to be "for free". They'll charge you, the developer, someone. If you're a long way from "enough" capacity, the cost can be significant.
That's why some folks aren't on the untilities grid.
Perhaps utilities were a bad choice of example on my part because of this usage confusion.
You are attempting to rely on a well-known logical fallacy.
See http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition...
What effect do universal service subsidies and other public works (such as highways) have on the rate of expansion of settlements?
Yes, they actually send unprofitable packages through the USPS.
The article devotes much discussion to the Universal Service Obligation; its origin, rationale, effects, and ways it can be updated without generating the tens to hundreds of billions of dollars of losses the USPS is now racking up. Did you read the article?
But personally, I like getting my mail no matter where I live.
Should the rest of the country pay tens to hundreds of billions of dollars for your convenience, if they don't share your preference?
You do the math on that universal service vs. choosing the profit maximization thing.
Talking about the post office's losses without citing that context is disingenuous.
Also, from having worked at a mailing house, I can tell the author doesn't understand much about how the post office actually routes mail.