Here's a look at the stories we're following right now. What are you reading this morning?
Poll: Gun law views unchanged after Aurora theater shooting
Disappointment, elation, thrills and (beer) spills in London
Elizabeth Warren Speaking At Democratic National Convention Before Bill Clinton Address
Kristi Yamaguchi: ‘Mitt Romney brought a huge sense of hope’
Leave a Comment:
Morning Joe:
Before you write off the US Post Office, and embrace the almighty Fed Ex, here’s a news flash for you. There’s still a large segment of the population that depends on the US Post Office for mailing their documents. That segment is the elderly in our country.
They do not use the internet for their banking, insurance, document handling, etc. There are also many other people in our country that are not earning 6 figure incomes like you, and cannot afford the excessive price of sending documents via Fed Ex and UPS. There are services that should not be handled by private corporations whose only interest is profit. Darren McMahon
OK joe, lets try facts shall we? 10 google "USPS Overall mail volume" and click Images. The USPS is shipping the same volume of mail it did in the 1990's, and TWICE the volume of mail it did in the '70's. SO the whole "there is not mail" argument is garbage.
Why then is the post office running such huge deficits? First, it is moving bulk mail at less then market rates. Time does not ship through fedex, nor do most magazines or direct mail catalogs. The reason for this is that the post office costs significantly less then fedex to ship light bulk mail. This lower cost preserves open markets, allowing sellers greater access to customers and preventing private companies from denying competitors access to the marketplace. The last time I checked free market theory, open market access was kinda important.
Second is the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, which requires the post office to pay 70+ years of pension costs over a 10 year window. Please, feel free to name for me any company anywhere that could pay 70 years of expenses from 10 years of revenue and remain in business, i am eager for a good laugh.
The broader issue here is that in conjunction with the republicans efforts to oppose net neutrality, this reflects i concerted effort to allow actors in the market to deny other actors access to the marketplace. Free markets are premised on the idea that buyers and sellers can voluntarily enter or leave the market without restriction. If some actors serve and the "Gate keepers" to the market, then any cost they impose for access reflects a restriction, and markets are no longer free. If nothing else, at least answer the question, "Is this what republicans intend?"