Trump Orders Audit of Postal Service After Suggesting Amazon Is To Blame For Their Troubles (politico.com) 493
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Politico: President Donald Trump ordered the U.S. Postal Service to undergo an audit Thursday evening, a move that comes after president's repeated claims that Amazon is fleecing the USPS through alleged unfair business practices. "The USPS is on an unsustainable financial path and must be restructured to prevent a taxpayer-funded bailout," reads the executive order Trump issued shortly before 9 p.m. While not explicitly mentioned in the order, the president has hammered e-commerce giant Amazon in recent weeks and alleged that the company and its CEO Jeff Bezos are driving the USPS into the ground. "I am right about Amazon costing the United States Post Office massive amounts of money for being their Delivery Boy," Trump wrote on Twitter on April 3. "Amazon should pay these costs (plus) and not have them bourne by the American Taxpayer." According to the executive order, a task force comprise of top officials, including Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who would chair the group, will lead the investigation into the USPS' finances and will be required to issue recommendations and a final report no later than early August.
Pension (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Pension (Score:4, Informative)
Does the USPS pay real estate tax? No.
Does the USPS pay market rent for the property used? No.
Does the USPS pay the water and sewage?
Does the USPS pay the tax on their electricity. (Take a look at the tax on your electric bill.)
Re:Pension (Score:5, Insightful)
Is the USPS a private for-profit company? No.
The real reason Republicans want to kill this quasi-public, self-funding agency is
because they can't make money (off the little guy) by buying stock in it and sucking
profits out through a golden straw. How dare the common man have a reliable
way to deliver mail that doesn't pay for their yachts?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Is the USPS a private for-profit company? No.
The real reason Republicans want to kill this quasi-public, self-funding agency is
because they can't make money (off the little guy) by buying stock in it and sucking
profits out through a golden straw. How dare the common man have a reliable
way to deliver mail that doesn't pay for their yachts?
I suspect it is more that they "BELIEVE" that all government linked stuff must be able to be done better by private parties. That may even be true much of the time, but the post office delivers everywhere, and that is the kind of service you can get when profit isn't your first motive.
Many republican beliefs are flaming piles of shit, but they still somehow believe it, and generally will contort their interpretation of reality to fit those facts.
It is a bit like, "Oh my gosh, the crops are failing, it look
Re: (Score:3)
Is the USPS a private for-profit company? No.
The real reason Republicans want to kill this quasi-public, self-funding agency is because they can't make money (off the little guy) by buying stock in it and sucking profits out through a golden straw. How dare the common man have a reliable way to deliver mail that doesn't pay for their yachts?
Well thought out except for the aside saying that Republicans want to make money specifically off the little guy. Rich people of both parties have no qualms of making money off others - rich or poor. Also, our taxes shouldn't directly pay for politicians' yachts.
Re:Pension (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Pension (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Pension (Score:5, Insightful)
The Department of Energy loan program which had Solyndra [cnn.com]. Yes, that one is efficient and successful. Of all the loans it has given out, only four have failed. The loss rate for the program [npr.org] (as of 2014) was 2.28%. Right now that program is making money [bloomberg.com] even though it was never intended to do so.
Further, Republicans were so sure the taxpayers would lose money on this program (which was started during the Bush administration), they set aside $10 billion to cover losses. Those four failures cost less than $1 billion.
Compare that to private industry which lost over $1 billion on Solyndra alone. Even Tesla paid back its loans nine years early, with interest.
You wanted one example, there ya go. Now go ahead and move the goalposts.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Pension (Score:4, Insightful)
Name one company that is as efficient as government services. I worked in the public sector for a while. I had a few horror stories to tell, but my friends that worked in the corporate sector could one-up me every time with truly appalling tales of graft and waste. Now I'm in the private not-for-profit sector and I have to say, waste-wise, we've still got the government beat with all the money we waste.
Re:Pension (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem here, as always, is creating a sort of artificial divide between a corporate bureaucracy and governmental bureaucracy. I've done a lot of work with government employees, and while there are issues, it never seems that much different than working with corporate bureaucracy. It's more about the general behavior of large organizations, than anything specific to public versus private organizations.
Re:Pension (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Pension (Score:5, Insightful)
The USPS. It's profitable and provides a service that is both far cheaper and can service far more customers than any private competition.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pension (Score:5, Interesting)
name a SINGLE government agency that is efficient at what it does.
Medicare and Medicaid provide health care coverage at a vastly reduced administrative cost compared to insurance companies, and actually pays their bills on time without dragging their feet to the point your doctor is about to sue you before admitting that yes, you are covered for that procedure.
Re:Pension (Score:4, Insightful)
It would be nice if we could get some fundamental reform that would relieve us of income taxes (Sales or VAT instead) and put the brakes on debt issuance.
The reason there's both income tax and sales/VAT is because sales tax the poor more heavily than the rich. You only pay sales tax on what you buy - and the poor are spending nearly 100% of their paychecks each month. Compare that with the rich, who spend very little of their paychecks and invest the rest - there is no tax on those investments unless you have an income tax.
Wealth inequality is bad enough as it is. Switching to only sales/VAT will make that problem even worse. If you want to be more fair, switching it the other way is the better way to go: Higher income tax, and the removal of sales tax, will fight income inequality. Of course, there are other reasons for sales tax to exist (tourism spending, for example), but those would take a lot more evaluation to see if the costs/benefits make it worthwhile, or truly add anything to the system.
Re:Pension (Score:4, Informative)
it's a half a billion people on the government's payroll
No it's not. It is exactly zero people on the government's payroll.
The USPS does not get any tax dollars. [usps.com]
Re: (Score:3)
...based on a Congressional requirement to fund their pension *75 YEARS* into the future. They are being forced to fund a pension fund for people that won't even be born for years to come, solely to make it look like they are in trouble to people who don't bother to look at *why* they appear to have a problem funding the pension.
Re:Pension (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Often state governments have the same arrangement. Note if the USPS is leasing space they do pay taxes indirectly.
2) That depends. If it is leased then once again they do so indirectly. Note also they had to purchase property in the cases where it is owned by them.
3) Yes
4) Unknown. Probably not though. They have the famous case where the court rules "the power to tax is the power to destroy". But neither do states pay Federal tax. Oh, and neither do corporations.
The US Postal Service is mandated by the US Constitution. They provide a valuable and efficient service to *all* Americans in the US. Not just the profitable locations.
This is just another way to give a monopoly to one company.
I predict this will destroy commerce via mail.
Re:Pension (Score:5, Interesting)
The US Postal Service is mandated by the US Constitution. They provide a valuable and efficient service to *all* Americans in the US. Not just the profitable locations.
Great point, really. Otherwise we end up with the 'gentrification' of the mail service. Imagine this: neighborhoods full of poor minorities suddenly don't get mail service anymore because it's 'unprofitable', being forced to drive to some far-away facility to pick up what was mail service to their door (assuming they can even get there at all). Or worse, they have to pay some sort of 'delivery surcharge' because they're not on 'normal routes', putting more financial stress on people already living paycheck to paycheck. Is this really the America we want to create?
Re:Pension (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it has been established the USPS's biggest problem is their need to pre-fund all their pensions for the next 75 years. There's also an established Republican desire to privatize USPS, probably so some private equity firm can suck that pension fund dry and discard the useless husk. If you want to preserve the USPS, get ready to fight to defend it.
Re: Pension (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh the horror, being fiscally responsible.
How cute. No one, and I mean no one, pre-funds their pension fund 75 years out, it's not rational.
Let's try this - why don't you go down to your local school board and get them to pre-fund their pension 75 years out, just like the USPS? Why not, according to you it is merely being 'fiscally responsible'?
Re: Pension (Score:4, Insightful)
Prefunding 75 years out is prefunding for employees that haven't been born yet.
Let that sink in.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because I'm an American. Therefore, I hate education and anyone connected to it. You're supposed to go threaten teachers with violence (especially science teachers), not offer them money, you silly!
Financally responsible is a vice, anyway. Most Americans habitually vote against that, and it's one of the things that all Democrat and Republican
Re: Pension (Score:4, Informative)
USPS Pension fund is not funded by payroll deductions.
The pensions are funded 75 years out, if employment slows down, fewer beneficiaries to fund, payments to retirement fund will go down. If USPS stopped hiring employees today, and everyone remained in the pension system, never left before vesting, never died before receiving benefits, etc. there would be no need to make any payments to the fund for 75 years - that's what it means to be 75 years funded.
Re: Pension (Score:5, Informative)
When people can retire and set their kids or grandkids to be beneficiaries, then you have a real problem as they will be paid in full for far longer than 75 years.
You literally made that up, USPS retirees can't designate their kids or grandkids as beneficiaries for their retirement payments.
Re: (Score:3)
It gets very expensive until fully-funded, then it is just incremental payments. It's an idea, there are worse ideas, but don't for a second pretend it is a common thing, or that anyone else in the world does it.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no requirement to fund for 75 years out.
Yes there is. There law requires to pre-fund them, it just doesn't mention 75 years. That number comes from the United States Office of Personnel Management who provide the guidelines for how to financially account for the requirements set out in the PAEA.
and the paid personnel who are attempt to cut benefits to the employees
You mean unborn employees right?
Re:Pension (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? Let's see you pre-fund your household expenses for the next 75 years with a 10 year deadline for the prefunding to be done. It's the fiscally responsible thing for you to do, after all.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
All that proves is the USPS is more efficient than the private sector. According to Congress they *must* turn a profit and they do.
Re: Pension (Score:2, Informative)
While everyone agrees that Amazon sucks, I don't understand how they're abusing the post office.
Do they get a sweetheart deal that drops them below cost? If not, the delivery is profitable.
Do they get a deal that's substantially better than the deal UPS gives them? If not, the deal is not corrupt.
If there's even a deal at all. But I haven't heard anyone claim that USPS loses money on average delivering for Amazon (other than the President, who is a well known pathological liar).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Article I establishes that Congress has the right to establish a governmental postal service (Section 8) but does not mandate that one be established. If Congress wants to privatize (or even abolish) the USPS it is perfectly within its rights to do so.
Re:Pension (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pension (Score:5, Informative)
Trump bloody hates Bezos because he owns the Washington Post, which regularly publishes factual information.
Fixed that for you.
Re:Pension (Score:5, Insightful)
The Post is pretty good with facts. They also have a strong anti-Trump bias. Most reasonable people do, but papers are supposed to attempt unbiased reporting. If they are trying, they suck at it.
Re: Pension (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't expect them to be unbiased - that's a human impossibility. What I do expect is that they try to be as unbiased as they can. The recent change (and by no means is this historically unprecedented) is that they have recognized that being biased drives revenue and so they don't even try anymore. It makes it very hard for a person who desires dry information to get it. Reuters and the AP seem to still try, and I try to randomize my sources a bit via Google News. But for the most part the reputable news sources have lined up against Trump (and Republicans in general), and I refuse to stoop to sources like Breitbart in a vain attempt to "balance" my news.
Re: Pension (Score:2)
It's pretty clear who's subsidizing who.
Re: Pension (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not that low.
Pre-sorting saves about $0.06 each on first class mail.
You can save another $0.15 going with lower class (standard) mail, but it can't contain a personal communication (even when a company does it) because they don't really out much effort into time or making certain someone gets it.
For that $0.06 discount, they are gaurenteed the address is good too, and that gaurenteed that their machines can read the address.
Re:Pension (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The criticism that they did it too fast is fair (10 years), but the change was absolutely justified and should be extended to the rest of government. Private companies have not been able to promise unfunded pensions for decades - it's a moral issue that the government is allowed to continue this practice. If you want to promise people future benefits, then actually fund those promises. Otherwise you are simply burdening your children with future obligations, and making no guarantee that they will keep your
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pension (Score:5, Insightful)
"Hasn't it already been pretty well established that the USPS is doing just fine, but the accounting practices congress forces them to use for their pension funding make it look bad on paper?"
Nonetheless, the idiot will make the post office asking for a higher price, which then will prompt Amazon to create their own 'delivery boy' service, thereby ruining the post office and thousands of people may lose their pensions and jobs.
Re: Pension (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This seems a little dramatic. I understand what you are saying but this is why people aren't listening to you. Dramatic rants of "the republicans will kill us all" is lost on all but the most devout liberals.
Try a different way and you'll be more successful.
Re:Pension (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. I'm a democrat and I've never met a democrat that is "for abortion". It is a ridiculous statement. Abortion is a terrible choice for a women to have to make, but we believe that it is her choice. I find it absurd that republicans want to force people to have babies and don't want to provide health care, food, education or an living wage for the parents. Republicans would much rather give tax breaks to the super rich than to provide a meal to a child they forced to be born. Complete hypocrisy.
Re:Pension (Score:5, Interesting)
And third trimester "abortions" are almost universally because we still call pulling an already dead baby out of it's mother an "abortion". Your hair is a collection of cells, but cutting it isn't murder.
Re:Pension (Score:5, Insightful)
Because sometimes a baby can develop without a brain and still have a beating heart. This baby is, for all acounts, dead. As dead as you would be if I removed the majority of your brain. Here's a better idea, if you are trying to pass a late term abortion ban, then start adding medical exemptions to the bills. Let a Dr with actual training decide what is and is not a living child.
And a fetus doesn't become a fetus until after 8 weeks, btw. But like I say, you either science, or you don't.
Re:Pension (Score:5, Informative)
In Canada, there's no law on the books governing abortions at all; it's a decision between a woman and her doctor.
That said, there are almost no third-trimester abortions. The only times where it might happen are when the fetus has already died. Women that carry the baby to the third trimester nearly universally WANTED the baby. There's no reason to outlaw the practice since it's only done for medically necessary reasons.
Contrary to the belief of anti-choice advocates, women that get abortions aren't doing them unnecessarily or capriciously. There's a litany of reasons why a woman might make that choice, but honestly, it's nobody's business but hers. A woman has bodily autonomy, and to deny that gives her less rights than a corpse. (This is literally true; you cannot use a dead person's organs without their prior consent, which is why you need to sign your organ donor card.)
Re:Pension (Score:5, Informative)
Because, there are people we can ask, much better qualified than YOU, called Doctors, and they can tell us when it is unnecessary to torture a mother whose baby has formed non-viably by forcing her to keep the corpse in her belly until "term".
he's probably right (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:he's probably right (Score:5, Funny)
I think the moon is made out of cheese. We should audit NASA while we're at it.
Re: he's probably right (Score:2)
I think Amazon is the only thing keeping the USPS from insolvency.
I'm afraid "think" simply isn't the right word.
Re: (Score:3)
Universal Postal Union (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Do the reasons actually matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure he has access to more information about USPS than the rest of us. I'm also sure he's not looking at that information because it would require reading, which he is apparently unwilling to do. He is most likely basing his complaints about USPS on his personal grudge against Jeff Bezos and some misinformation he heard on Fox News, since personal grudges and TV propaganda are the same tools he uses to make all his other decisions.
Re:Do the reasons actually matter? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure he has access to more information about USPS than the rest of us. I'm also sure he's not looking at that information because it would require reading, which he is apparently unwilling to do. He is most likely basing his complaints about USPS on his personal grudge against Jeff Bezos and some misinformation he heard on Fox News, since personal grudges and TV propaganda are the same tools he uses to make all his other decisions.
But rather than ever admit he's wrong he will make up false facts and spend the remaining two and a half years of his presidency bashing Amazon.
Re:Do the reasons actually matter? (Score:5, Funny)
He might accidentally find an actual problem, and in his awkward, inept way come up with a plan for a solution that (over a couple of years) solves the problem.
Yeah, he'll hire John Ratzenberger who played the postman on Cheers to turn it around. Or some Fox News commentator to do it.
Trump's business knowledge is greatly overstated.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Quite the reverse, I suspect he's being told by everyone concerned that he's wrong, and he's insisting on an audit because he still thinks he's right
Isn't that attitude how he won the election?
Re:Do the reasons actually matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, dumb luck, dumber voters, and the failure of Comey to release the facts about both Clinton and Trump investigations...plus Russia stoking division among the Democrats and Liberals over the Sanders bullshit.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Trump doesn't act on accurate information, he acts on whatever information supports his views. Bezos has pissed off Trump, mostly because he runs WaPo. Trump wants to find ammo that supports anything that will hurt Bezos. That is to say, he's witch-hunting Amazon, claiming it's bad for the US taxpayer, because it supports his feelings.
He might have more information than the rest of us but so what? He only pays attention to that part of it that supports his feelings. 'The USPS is in financial trouble' - well
Re:Do the reasons actually matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
I rather suspect that he has access to really good base information on the subject,
He has access to great information and even expert advice on many topics. Based on his behaviour, this doesn't actually seem to affect many of his decisions.
Also, he has at least some familiarity and ability with finance, unlike many other politicians.
Which is completely irrelevant since the only politician involved is Trump, who has a personal grudge against Amazon.
In any event, lets assume he's bumbling into a subject which we've identified as a problem for many years.
Traditional postal revenue has declined for years. Package delivery is probably one of the major things propping it up. If prices need to be adjusted, then adjust prices. People who work at USPS would probably be the best qualified to have an opinion about that. Meanwhile anyone with common sense can see Trump's voiced opinion is far more about his grudge against Amazon's CEO than a concern to fix the USPS. He's singling out Amazon because he wants to hurt their stock.
Re: (Score:2)
Useless without Congress (Score:5, Insightful)
For some reason, Congress will not allow the USPS to use GAAP for their pension and healthcare obligations which make the USPS look like it is in the red. It is actually a well-run amortization that by normal metrics is revenue neutral.
Re:Useless without Congress (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if the USPS was in the red, it's still an incredibly valuable and critical piece of public infrastructure and should be well funded. Yes, even at a net loss. If we can light $600+ billion on fire every year to fund the most powerful military in the world, we can throw a few pennies at the postal service.
Re:Useless without Congress (Score:5, Informative)
Even if the USPS was in the red, it's still an incredibly valuable and critical piece of public infrastructure and should be well funded. Yes, even at a net loss. If we can light $600+ billion on fire every year to fund the most powerful military in the world, we can throw a few pennies at the postal service.
Here's the thing, and I say this as a libertarian. Well, let me show you something:
http://constitutionus.com/ [constitutionus.com]
Scroll down to Article I, Section 8, paragraph 7. It's short, I'll put it here:
(The Congress shall have Power) To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
It's actually in the Constitution! This is a fully legal part of the federal government. This isn't the Department of Education.
The founders recognized that this was a really important function of the government, so important that they put it in a list of only 18 areas over which the federal government has legal authority.
I'm glad the USPS funds itself, but I don't care, actually. It's a very important thing to have around and we need to protect it, even if that means throwing a little money at it now and then.
That said, it also needs to fulfill its pension obligations.
peer-to-peer package delivery (Score:2)
It is hard to crunch the exact numbers, but I am in the camp that Amazon helps the USPS stay afloat, by giving them something to do. The way the USPS is structured government control but technically independent, there is not way there they can turn a profit.
That said, this is just going to push Bezos to implement his Uber/Lyft delivery even quicker. I've seen those white van of Amazon, tossing packages on my door stop, taking a picture, sprinting back to their van, and speeding off to their next drop.
What d
Re: (Score:2)
Not only this, but they're logistics suck.
Ordered something and did next day delivery to an Amazon store as I needed the part for a repair and no one locally had it. The site said it would be there by 8pm, although I was hoping it would arrive sooner as the store is in the town I work in, where as I live 40 minutes away and it was to be delivered on a Friday.
Long store short, 8:03pm hit before Amazon updated that my package was delayed by the carrier but they couldn't give a why, even though the status in t
Re: (Score:2)
Not only this, but they're logistics suck.
Ordered something and did next day delivery to an Amazon store as I needed the part for a repair and no one locally had it. The site said it would be there by 8pm, although I was hoping it would arrive sooner as the store is in the town I work in, where as I live 40 minutes away and it was to be delivered on a Friday.
Long store short, 8:03pm hit before Amazon updated that my package was delayed by the carrier but they couldn't give a why, even though the status in the app said the package had been delivered to the carrier. It updated my delivery to be "Monday to Wednesday". I called Amazon to complain as I paid the extra for the next day. They refunded that cost and I asked how they didn't know when it would arrive as THEY are the carrier. They said it would be there Tuesday. Guess what arrived over the weekend (I can't remember now if it showed up Saturday or Sunday).
Amazon's Logistics/delivery service (or whoever they contract out to and slap that label on) is utter crap.
I tried the Amazon Prime free month thing over xmas-time. Was very dissatisfied with it. Over half the prime shipping they sent me took longer than the two days they promised at the electronic check-out. (Probably due to being the busiest shipping time of the year...) that's the only time I've really been dissatisfied by Amazon. The extra day (or two days for one package) delay in Prime shipping wasn't a big deal, I didn't need it then, but it didn't bode well for the free-trial, and bothered me tha
Don't they pay postage? (Score:3)
"I am right about Amazon costing the United States Post Office massive amounts of money for being their Delivery Boy," Trump wrote on Twitter on April 3. "Amazon should pay these costs (plus) and not have them bourne by the American Taxpayer."
I'm confused. Doesn't Amazon pay for the postage on the packages it ships? I would assume they do. If so, how are they not paying these costs? And isn't the purpose of the Post Office to be a "delivery boy"? What's going on here?
Re:Don't they pay postage? (Score:5, Funny)
They (Amazon) do pay. Trump is (or was) apparently under the impression that selecting "Free Shipping" for your purchases from Amazon meant that the Post Office didn't get any money for delivering that package.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but they're paying a LOT less than what regular folks pay. The postal office rates for the rest of us are set up not to make a huge profit but also not to make a huge loss, Amazon and others have been able to 'negotiate' lower rates than that with the only chip that Amazon and co has to put up is: well, if you don't take our packages, you have to lay off 10-20% of your workforce - now take the packages and lend some money from the government to pay for it ($15B in the last decade according to their own
Re: (Score:2)
I worked for FedEx Office for a number of years. So, in addition to running copies and such, I also had to process packages that customers dropped off at our store.
Guess what? FedEx offers deep discounts too, depending on how much you ship. There was a guy who came in once or twice a week just during my shifts who was sending multiple packages each time. And his discount was something like 20%.
Hell, as an employee, I could get a 75% discount on anything I shipped via FedEx.
My point is, the Post Office is ha
Re: (Score:2)
Erm...
If you're giving large companies that use your service a discount on your service that means you can't profit from them... YOU'RE the idiot. Not them. Raise the prices.
Fact is, though, that it's just not true. At best, they can't compete with others offering the same service for a lower price. Again - YOU'RE the idiot, if you're unable to compete, USPS.
If the only alternative is layoffs (which is bollocks, but let's roll with it)? Guess what... you're already on the knife-edge. If the alternativ
Re: (Score:2)
can't blame Amazon for everything (Score:2)
anyone care to wager? (Score:3, Funny)
what do we think the odds are that the audit will come back saying "the USPS has a massive pension they are required to fund, fixed infrastructure and payroll costs, and declining revenue due to the prevalence of digital technology supplanting many of their services." versus coming back "Jeff Bezos is actually a secret Chinese agent working for the deep state to import Mexican rapists and their families into the country illegally to spread fake news."?
What? (Score:4, Funny)
In other news, Amazon is using Starbucks as their coffee boy, Seattle City Light as their electricity bitch, and various product manufacturers as their production slaves.
Art of the Deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems strange that a guy who has claimed previously that he's "The Best" at making good deals, and has suggested that those who fail to make good deals are stupid, would beat up Amazon for making a ... good deal !
So while the postal service needs an overhaul in this modern world I have to doubt the motivation. UPS and FedEx are doing terrific due to online orders. So hasn't the postal service benefited as well? Could it be they were last to offer Tracking of packages? Had mandates that conflicted with growth? Didn't invest and see the future?
It is a gov't service. So it runs rain or shine. Where as business can change and decide what markets they want to service.
Re:Art of the Deal? (Score:4, Insightful)
which is why amazon, and other retailers, and even ups and fedex, uses the post office... letter carriers go by nearly every address, every single day, anyway, whether their trucks are empty or full.
amazon gets lower rates because they label and size packages for automated sorting and because they tell the post office ahead of 'mailing' where packages are going from and to. any business with the volume of amazon could get the same rates if they did the same thing. the fucking rates are published and non-discriminatory aside from technical and volume restrictions and requirements. amazon isn't paying some secret super-low rate, amazon can offer 'free shipping' because of retail markup and because of the sheer scale of amazon prime (many, many more people do not use their shipping benefit than do).
Re: (Score:2)
Do the audit! (Score:5, Interesting)
Crybaby Trump throwing yet another fit (Score:5, Insightful)
WAAAH! Jeff Bezos is richer and a more successful businessman than I am, WAAAH!
This is what Trump looks like when he's talking about Jeff Bezos [giphy.com]
Donald Trump acts like a spoiled-rotten narcissistic 5-year-old most of the time already, but you confront him with someone who is clearly and objectively richer, more successful, and a better overall businessman? He loses his shit and lashes out in a childlike temper-tantrum like this, which is going to cost you, the U.S. taxpayer, as a totally unnecessary 'audit' of the USPS is conducted. Meanwhile there are matters vitally important to the Nation as a whole that are being ignored in favor of Trumps' ego and vanity. Isn't enough enough already? Trump voters: what were you thinking!?
Re:Jealous (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably, but it is more that Bezos owns a news paper that doesn't suck up to him. He will let the country fail, just as long as people are telling him how good he is.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone is mighty jealous of Bezos net worth.
Unlike Trump, Bezos is a real billionaire. Trump actually has a net negative net worth, but he considers the "Trump" brand as an asset worth billions. The reason Trump doesn't want his income tax statements public is that he lives off borrowed money and doesn't pay taxes because he technically doesn't earn any money.
Re:Jealous (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason Trump doesn't want his income tax statements public is that he lives off borrowed money and doesn't pay taxes because he technically doesn't earn any money.
Nobody that would be considered rich "earns" any money in the sense of "exchanges labor" for it anyway. Earning is the sort of thing people do when they just need to survive. Being rich implies that your money makes money and you have so much of it that you could live your entire life without either running out or needing to do any of that filthy labor stuff.
Rich people, throughout history, have often operated under the framework that non-rich people exist only to do their bidding, don't have any intrinsic value, and life would be rather better if they didn't exist at all. History books have some exciting stories when this ends badly.
Re: (Score:2)
Put it in the Amazon cloud.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, as long as you're not receiving anything, I can see how you think FedEx, UPS or (especially) DHL are superior to the postal service...
Sure about that? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a pretty frickin thin "second side" to the story. Downright ridiculous, actually.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are right, the USPS seems to receive subsidies (according to that article).
BUT: these subsidies are given regardless of whether it makes a profit or not. The difference between what the POTUS says and reality is that he says that the LOSSES of the USPS are paid for by the tax-payers. This is not the case. The (indirect) subsidies mentioned in the article are given to the USPS regardless of which customer they server, whether they make a profit or loss.
In exchange, the USPS is obligated to deliver mail t
Re: (Score:2)
80% of those "costs to the taxpayer" are the monopoly on mailbox delivery. Which actually costs the government $0 - it costs society via reduced competition, but the topic is cost to the government
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is pretty much how all national postal services work. They calculate a uniform price list for delivery based on package size and/or weight. And then charge that uniformly for all deliveries, no matter what the actual effort expended is. It's not so much cheap pricing (although UK mail is subsidized across the board) as it is uniform pricing.
The USPS is actually subsidizing delivery to rural locations. They'd be much more profitable (or lose less) if they didn't have to haul mail and packages out to lo
Re:Nobody is trying to eliminate USPS (Score:5, Insightful)