sir_stier
The author stated twice as fact, that there is no evidence for the USPS loosing money. Trump is pulling it out of his ... without evidence. And that it blatantly false. A simple google search pulled up that analysis by Citibank and multiple mainstream news articles. Including the WSJ.
I appreciate you providing the article. More solid that the interpretation of news.
On page 4 it says they are losing money and basically subsidizing the shipping or parcels?
"We contend that this floor for competitive (parcel) products has been maintained at artificially low levels, creating large-scale systemic economic inefficiencies engendered by what is effectively a government-enforced taxpayer subsidization of the USPS’ irrational pricing."
Again, even if the whole argument is weak, it was published with multiple news sources, and comes up with a Citibank study with even a quick Google search....this whole article is absolute hog wash man. Dishonest.
Unless anyone wishes to completely invalidate the Citibank study and WSJ article. I've seen no opposing evidence.
The whole article awkwardly stresses twice that the argument is without evidence. Which is simply not true.
How about the fact Amazon after deductions has paid ZERO federal taxes? Despite billions of dollars in US sales.
I pulled those sources up with a quick Google search since I remember reading about it. For a journalist to say or imply the Wall Street Journal published something, and Citibank published something...without evidence is scandalous and false. Trump is merely parroting the news.
Says much more about the integrity of the article more than anything else.
How about this article in the Wall Street journal and the analysis done by Citibank?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-post-office-gives-amazo...
The Washington Examiner?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/for-every-amazon-package-...