No, We Don't Need to Bailout the Post Office

Yeah, I'm currently too lazy to find a better image, so this is what you get. It'll do, and I think it might even give this subject and conversation the exact amount of attention it deserves. It's not even something I feel that strongly about, but when wrong things are said, I feel obligated to respond.

This was written hastily. So point out errors as you wish, I'm certain there are some. I did my best with the time I was willing to set aside.

So, I unadvisedly exchanged words with someone who linked an article outraged about the post office being considered for not being bailed out. You see, I’m generally of the opinion that big government should not be collecting our taxes to hand over to corporations that aren’t financially solvent, as that effectively establishes a government assisted monopoly that siphons the money from hard working citizens and hands it over to out of touch executives.

Now, that also includes the post office, an institution even more heavily integrated with the government, one which is a codified monopoly in that any competition is regulated to insolvency, and those trying to avoid using the post office can be and are prosecuted for the crime of transmitting letters without government sanctioned oversight.

Now, I was linked quite a few sources, but after skimming one which that was so far off the mark in regards to relevance that I can only assume they copy pasted the first result from Google, I decided against providing a systematic analysis of this source, or others. I’ll just say that it referenced:

1. European, not American postal services
2. International, not domestic(at least, that’s the implication I got from “single market”)
3. Government involvement via majority shares in private company, rather than lack thereof
4. Price fixing and quality demands rather than allowing free market specializations
5. Overly verbose, convoluted examples concerned with market shares rather than with how a fully independently owned post office would compare to government run/involved
6. JUST NOT EVEN REMOTELY RELATED TO LITERALLY ANYTHING I WAS DISCUSSING

...sigh. Sorry. I just get frustrated when people create fallacious arguments rather than being able to discuss intelligently on a subject, instead hiding behind large walls of irrelevant information. Oh, especially when the only pseudo independent thought presented alongside is, and I quote:

“Pushing for this during a crisis is idiotic.”

Ahem. I’m not pushing for us to build new post offices. I’m not pushing for us to immediately disband and defund the post office. I was stating my opposition to a $13 Billion dollar bailout for a government sanctioned monopoly that is suffering not from extreme demand, but an extreme lack of demand, especially since the majority of critical activities the post office handles could largely be completed cheaper, faster, and safer using digital methods. Digital options which, as it just so happens, might just be contributing to that lack of demand in something costlier, slower, and more prone to error.

But what really caught my eye was a six point list, explaining how I was so very wrong. I thought that the best way to handle this discussion would be to just go through them, point by point, and explain why each of them are either based on faulty assumptions, irrelevant, or just good old fashioned wrong. Here… we… go…

1. Enterprise requires confidence in investment. Corona has wiped that out for now. Since the timing of a bounce back cannot be known it's prudent not to upset essential institutions with radical change. Many people find the postal service a necessary component of their business operations; bills, order forms, follow ups and correspondences. It may not seem important to our generation but people my grandmothers and fathers age use the postal service frequently to communicate with certain types of businesses, ones that provide magazines that advertise goods and mail order type services. Also many people continue to use paper and mail for their banking information. While a bank is seeking to get the best deal among multiple start up mail companies there could be complications.

Okay, first of all… learn to summarize. You spend an enormous amount of words stating something that was basically explained in the first two sentences, maybe with a third to wrap it up.

Second of all, we are already facing radical change, whether you like it or not. Businesses are rapidly adapting to low contact models to continue operations in the face of the pandemic. But I’m also not advocating we defund the post office, I’m suggesting we don’t mindlessly bail them out. The reason they are running out of money is because of a LACK of demand. So they should reduce their operations to accommodate, while maintaining critical operations. A majority of your point here is simply irrelevant.

2. During a pandemic, where people can be shuffled around and quarantines can be instituted, it is foolish to disrupt established commonly used lines of communication. Markets take time to produce efficiency as entrepreneurs experiment with new ideas and test them against one another in competition. Right now people are supposed to be playing it safe and keep risks to a minimum. Mistakes can cost lives where highly contagious viruses are concerned.

Sure, we need to keep communication lines open, which is why I’m not saying shut them down using the force of law. I’m suggesting we don’t sink extra money into them when they aren’t even being used. There are so many other forms of communication that are faster, cheaper, and require far less direct human contact, the idea that we need the post office for communication is patently silly. In fact, pushing for people to use more digital communication rather than paper letters, which causes closer human contact than digital, might actually be the thing that saves lives.

3. The majority of US citizens are satisfied with how the postal service operates as is. https://news.gallup.com/poll/179519/americans-rate-postal-service-highest-major-agencies.aspx

Public opinion does not affect objective value. Oregon has a law against pumping your own gas, and it’s attempted repeal was wildly unpopular, even though it would merely allow drivers to pump their own gas, not REQUIRE them to. Gas station attendants would still be perfectly legal. So forgive me if I look to actually prove civilization, and not mindlessly cling to antediluvian institutions because they are popular, perhaps solely from a sense of nostalgia. In fact, isn’t that a fallacy? Thing good because popular? Hmm, whatever.

Short video about Oregon gas pumping law story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfMLvub5pdM

4. Private postal businesses have no duty to service unprofitable routes and areas.

I cannot imagine a mail service would be successful if, every time you went to send a letter, you had to check if they actually serviced the area. They might charge more to send letters to remote locations, but I’m pretty sure the current post office has different rates in a similar fashion.

This tangent is especially embarrassing when the video I originally linked specifically references how the post office only started delivering to residences, rather than requiring recipients pick up their mail at the nearest established post office, because a private business named the American Letter Mail Company actually competed with them by doing exactly that. The private company was providing better service at lower costs until the government instituted a monopoly by, if I recall correctly, requiring private businesses to charge six times the rate the post office charges to deliver mail.

Video destroying arguments against private mail delivery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1QHaE0beY8

So, forgive me if I think modern private businesses might find a way to handle out of the way locations better than the post office, which started off by simply ignoring the problem until someone else actually innovated on their stagnant model.

5. US public postal services have a duty to be transparent about costs, revenue and difficulties.

This borders on a non sequitor… so? Is it of special benefit for us to know their costs, revenue, and difficulties? I agree that transparency is better for a bevy of reasons, but if that was the only concern, just regulate private mail delivery to meet similar criteria. But generally, you can treat a business like a black box. They provide a service for a stated price with given guarantees and protections against loss, you really don’t need a full rundown on how they accomplish their goal.

6. The US postal service provides other services marginally related to mail which helps other government agencies do their own jobs, such as cooperation with the national weather bureau in dissemination of their information and reporting forest fires or distributing crop surveys. This provides more information. https://about.usps.com/universal-postal-service/universal-service-and-postal-monopoly-history.pdf

Cool, so they have a purpose beyond mail delivery. We can keep paying them for those services, as is perfectly acceptable, while other businesses perfect the art of delivering mail with higher efficiency at lower cost.

…but this is such broken logic as a defense. This is like if you have a restaurant employee that is amazing at waiting tables, but terrible at cooking, and your defense why they should keep being stationed in the kitchen is because they are great at waiting tables. No, of course you move people to their areas of competence, and remove them from areas of incompetence. Because that increases efficiency. I feel like this shouldn’t need to be explained, but apparently it does.

If a service is valuable, then people are willing to pay for it. This is the bedrock of capitalism. If the post office provides truly valuable services in the course of their mail delivery, and their mail delivery dips in demand, they should simply pivot to focus on providing what is actually in demand.

...And that’s it. Now, the active linking to lengthy sources that are either poor evidence or simply irrelevant, combined with a serious lack of cogent points that don’t read like a regurgitated “top ten reasons post office is gud”, suggests the commenter hasn’t the slightest idea what I’m even suggesting, or why I’m suggesting it. So, let me very clearly explain, so there is no confusion on what I’m advocating, and why.

During a pandemic, allocation of resources is very important. If you give money to one party, that money can’t be given to a different one. You can print more money, but that only inflates the currency, with the percentage still being an operative factor in how much support you are actually providing.

I’m against giving bailouts to any sort of business that simply isn’t providing needed services, and guess what? You can tell they aren’t by the fact that they are struggling due to lack of demand. Now, that doesn’t mean I want us to just make them illegal, and immediately privatize. I’m saying we shouldn’t divert crucial funds to prop up a business whose supply is outpacing demand, and should instead focus on funding emergency services, financial assistance for at risk individuals, coronavirus research, and anything else that would better use 13 Billion, with-a-B-not-an-M, BILLION dollars.

It’s more broadly a principle of voluntary rather than compulsory economic transactions. If people want to prop up an industry with their support, that is fine. That is the spirit of free market capitalism, allowing people to spend their money as they see fit. But don’t ask the government to step in and remove that aspect of choice, picking and choosing winners and losers while dismissively expecting the taxpayer to pick up the tab, as if no price is too high. I think the post office should not receive undue public funding, but it is especially important to be critical of expenditures when every dollar counts, and we teeter on the edge of some very serious economic fallout. Now, you might disagree with my specific opinions on where funding should go and how valuable the post office is to society, but to suggest any questioning of billion dollar bailouts for big businesses during hectic times is idiotic?

I consider that severe lack of introspection to not just be idiotic, but far more dangerous. It’s the kind of thinking that allows smooth talking politicians to take advantage of a crisis, and have you repeat their talking points for them, rather than actually holding them to account. And I find that mindset abhorrent.