[JumpCrisscross]

> that ANY public service is not worth improving

The argument is specific to logistics. Our government has a poor track record in that domain outside the military.

Instead of doubling down on a concentrated bet, increasing competition would seem to be the solution. For example, the federal government could grant porting rights on its property, thereby breaking the Ports of LA & Long Beach’s monopoly.

[res0nat0r]

The post office has for decades been able to send mail across the country in a few days, anywhere, for less than a buck.

It can work and be efficient just fine if it weren't purposefully hamstrung by people trying to ruin it so it can be privatized.

[b9a2cab5]

The post office is increasingly losing business to low cost shippers and high margin business to same-day delivery tech startups. Not only that, their trucks are older than some drivers and the contract to replace them was filled with government pork.

You're never going to get innovation from people who are just trying to work a job for a wage and pension. That's why Amazon is disrupting everyone with their logistics network.

[fivea]

> The argument is specific to logistics. Our government has a poor track record in that domain outside the military.

US public services have a long track record of being actively sabotaged by governments. See the US Post Office being undermined by Trump's appointment of DeJoy.

[JumpCrisscross]

> US public services have a long track record of being actively sabotaged by governments. See the US Post Office being undermined by Trump's appointment of DeJoy.

Why they have a poor track record is a separate discussion.

[fivea]

> Why they have a poor track record is a separate discussion.

The whole point is that if you're trying to dismiss an obvious option for it's track record, even though it is quite capable and able to do the legwork, then being aware of the root cause of that problem, and the fact that it's an artificial constraint with ideological roots, is very much central to the discussion.

[JumpCrisscross]

> being aware of the root cause of that problem, and the fact that it's an artificial constraint with ideological roots, is very much central to the discussion

It's proximate, not central, to the question of whether centralising logistics will improve outcomes.

The central question is whether the USPS, as a centralized, federally-controlled logistics network, works better than its privately-owned, de-centralised freight counterparts. It doesn't. That it's being sabotaged is good to be aware of. But it's not super relevant to the core question, and frankly, an argument against centralization since it suggests moving from a domain where they're being neglected by one set of parties to one where it's being sabotaged by another.

[throwawayboise]

The post office was a mess long before Trump.