[sachinag]

The problem is the mandatory requirements for full service in unprofitable areas. The USPS literally has a plane that goes weekly to the most isolated part of Idaho: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/30/us/30idaho.html

There's no way a private contractor could/would do that.

[orblivion]

In the long run I don't see that as a problem. People should pay a premium if their lifestyle takes up more resources like that.

[chancho]

You are not subsidizing their ability to receive mail from you. You are paying for your ability to send mail to them. It's the same rationale as the universal service fund for phones. A network like the phone or mail network reaches it's full potential only when it connects everybody.

[orblivion]

Well fair enough, if you want to send a package to a far-off area, you should pay for that too. Pay a premium to sent to or from remote areas. That's what happens with UPS, right?

I haven't used a land line in a long time, especially for long distance, but aren't the rates different by state?

Perhaps, like with electronic connections, when the price difference becomes small enough, they can make one flat rate because the simplicity pays off more via customer satisfaction. But international calls, for instance, still cost extra.

[jacoblyles]

We still don't have a government phone monopoly.

[Dove]

Isn't that a bit like driving a nail with a tactical nuke?

If you want a government program to deliver mail to obscure locations at a loss, create a program to do that. There's no reason for the government to assume responsibility for delivering all mail, and especially no reason for it to make it illegal for others to deliver mail!

And especially, especially no reason to protect the program from being cut as mail slowly becomes obsolete.

Must government insist on solving 100% of the problem when it doesn't trust the free market to handle that 0.5% case?

[ibsulon]

It would be more expensive, not less. The post office currently operates as efficiently as it does because of the economies of scale, and as such is close to break even.

It's not like the free market doesn't compete. UPS and FedEx are still around, for example, just not on bulk mail and first class. It also connects with other postal services in other countries, and reciprocity agreements are governed by treaties, making a true free market solution incongruous with the rest of the world.

PS -- the post office is the second oldest institution in the US, and government-controlled postal services go back to (at least) Darius I in Persia. There's more precedent for a privatized military.

[ippisl]

It doesn't have to be more expensive. if they cooperate with the companies that the deliver the profitable part of mail, the gain access to those economies of scale.

[hnal943]

They certainly would. Just not for 44 cents.

[dustingetz]

yep, part of the cost of living in isolation.

[mmt]

I think you're confusing outsourcing with deregulation. A private contractor would happily do that for enough subsidy.

[cjoh]

(subsidies without regulation) == Corruption

[mmt]

Indeed. I think the OC was illustrating the converse situation, which is that unfunded mandates to the private sector are untenable.

In either case, I agree that the two go together. Perhaps there's just too much ambiguity in the term "privatization."

[bretpiatt]

A private contractor would be happy to do that for a profitable price. Postage at a flat fee subsidizes some customers at the expense of others. If you want to send mail to the remote part of Idaho get ready for a very infrequent delivery or a high charge.