by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Friday December 29, 2017 @06:11PM (#55830765)
Fake news for a fake president. Sort of a double-negative thing.
Besides, even if the USPS charged more, how many of you would bet that Amazon wouldn't just simply pass the rate hike on to consumers? Any businessman worth half his salt would do that.
It may actually be a good point that the USPS should be charging Amazon more, but that common sense approach would have to apply to EVERY company and individual that ships a package via USPS.
Amazon is on track to provide its own delivery system. including the last mile.
The monopolistic ambiance of commerce regulators will allow it and USPS, UPS, and FedEx will hurt like hell, just as retail has, because of the "Amazon Effect."
Fuck the USPS, what we need is a last mile solution. And how we need to get that is to [literally?] hold the telco execs' feet to the fire until they give us what we paid for. Seriously, all this snail mail is dumb. It should just be packages.
I've yet to see a country with a functional postal system. Pretty much all of them seem to deliver more junk than actual mail. That's pretty dysfunctional.
Congress should allow USPS to specifically charge Amazon more than others, on the grounds of preventing monopoly. Unfortunately that would be unpopular with consumers (and would violate Postal Neutrality). Maybe Trump's attempt of shaming USPS publicly into feeling stupid for helping Amazon would have some effect.
seriously? USPS operates at a loss, Trumps says they should charge more then to be profitable (or not run at a loss) and its an attack on fake news from a left-wing news site?
Maybe he's more interested in the fiscal issues of subsidising the postal service and hitting the near-monopoly (and tax avoiding) user of the service is a good soundbite. But I guess it doesn't matter what he does, you're so indoctrinated Trump will always be bad. He could hand out free puppies to all children, and you'd scream and co
I know they are going to mod you down so I'll say it a little more softly.
President Trump tweets something bizarre in order to distract everyone from other news less favorable to him.
His behavior towards his daughter is creepy.
He's accused by over a dozen women of sexually assaulting them and he said on tape that he sexually assaults women ("grabs them by the pussy") because he can get away with it because he's rich and famous.
I disagree on Russia. Mr. Trump has screamed in fear a couple times now includin
Works OK in the UK, to a point. Businesses that send a lot of post get a preferential rate, hence all the junk mail we enjoy (well, I enjoy putting it in the shredder). I guess that's not "neutral" as it charges differently to different customers.
Selling stuff in bulk doesn't break neutrality, at least as long as they sell it to any legal business that wants to buy in bulk.
Only if by "bulk" you mean shipping containers instead of parcels. Delivering 1000 packages for Amazon should cost exactly the same as delivering 1000 packages for 1000 different individuals (assuming they all dropped off their packages at the same post office). Doing anything else does not conform to neutrality, as that would punish the smaller players simply due to their inability to negotiate a deal. This is highly anti-competitive and it's exactly what net neutrality is supposed to prevent.
Volume discounts are normal in most any business. Here there is network neutrality but it doesn't stop my ISP from doubling my bandwidth for 30% more cost even though I'd be using 2 households of regular bandwidth. Likewise the post office here gives deals if you buy a bunch of stamps at once. As long as they aren't playing favourites, it's neutral. Likewise as long as everyone who shows up with a thousand packages gets the same deal, it's neutral.
It would be 100% unconstitutional for Congress to pass a bill allowing the USPS to charge Amazon more than others. That's called a Bill of Attainer. At best Congress would have to pass a bill identifying a class of customers, but doing so is likely to cement Amazon's dominance, not reduce it, as it would impact all Amazon's competitors.
Also worth noting: just because the USPS makes a loss doesn't mean they make a loss on everything. Their contract with Amazon is almost certainly a major profit center: wh
it's unconstitutional. It's against the law to write laws that single out an individual or individual group. That was expressly forbade in our constitution, and for damn good reason.
it wouldn't surprise me if he got the Post Office to rescind postal neutrality as well. Which would be hilarious as it would mostly harm those that voted for him.
Almost all of Trumps policies disproportionally hurt those who voted for him.
If the USPS raised rates because it was selling below cost and Amazon raised their price because they were shipping below cost then this is how it is supposed to work. Trump is right that the USPS shouldn't be subsidizing Amazon. But what would likely actually happen is that Amazon would switch to other carriers and/or increase the amount they deliver directly and the USPS would likely just lose that business completely.
Yes but the moron himself runs the USPS or âoeUnited States Post Officeâ (does that even exist?). How can someone b!tch about an organization they themselves run? Itâ(TM)s like he is officially declaring himself to be an idiot. Second, is it legal for a president to punish and interfere with the private sector in this manner? Last I checked, private entities and people should not be subject to defamation by the government unless without due process and a trial. If any other president told peo
Yes but the moron himself runs the USPS or âoeUnited States Post Officeâ (does that even exist?). How can someone b!tch about an organization they themselves run? Itâ(TM)s like he is officially declaring himself to be an idiot.
The president neither runs nor sets the prices for the USPS. He does though have a giant soapbox that he can use. Complaining about the prices charged and requesting congress to help him change them is probably an appropriate job for the president if the president really believes this to be true.
Second, is it legal for a president to punish and interfere with the private sector in this manner?
Even though the president doesn't run the USPS, the USPS is owned and managed by the USA government. The USPS is not private.
Raising prices isn't how it "is supposed to work". If it was, making money would be easy. Open a store, keep raising prices until you make a profit.
Amazon charges $0 for a lot of their shipping and they are making money despite charging less for shipping than the cost of shipping.
USPS isn't subsidizing Amazon, they are offering a service at a price and Amazon and every other person who ships items through the USPS pays that price. That the USPS overall is losing money is more complex than what they charg
Besides, even if the USPS charged more, how many of you would bet that Amazon wouldn't just simply pass the rate hike on to consumers? Any businessman worth half his salt would do that.
Every business passes on every regulatory and other cost on to it's customers, because that is where 100% of their revenue comes from - the only money a company has is the money it collects from it's customers.
I remember years ago when the gov't passed a new tax to be applied to every telephone account - the idea was to soak the rich telecos, but the telcos simply added a line item to everyone's phone bill and directly passed that new tax on to their customers.
Gov't tried to force the telcos to stop itemizi
"May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house."
-- George Carlin
Fake News (Score:4, Interesting)
While they probably should, Trump feels this way because Jeff Bozo, who owns Amazon, also owns the NYT - or as Trump says "Fake News"...
Re:Fake News (Score:1)
Fake news for a fake president. Sort of a double-negative thing.
Besides, even if the USPS charged more, how many of you would bet that Amazon wouldn't just simply pass the rate hike on to consumers? Any businessman worth half his salt would do that.
Re:Fake News (Score:5, Insightful)
It's worse than that.
It may actually be a good point that the USPS should be charging Amazon more, but that common sense approach would have to apply to EVERY company and individual that ships a package via USPS.
Amazon is on track to provide its own delivery system. including the last mile.
The monopolistic ambiance of commerce regulators will allow it and USPS, UPS, and FedEx will hurt like hell, just as retail has, because of the "Amazon Effect."
Re: Fake News (Score:1)
Don't worry, net neutrality will stop them from doing that.
Interesting; thank you (Score:2)
One can only assume that Americans regarded this as from outside the USA and so insignificant to real people ;)
Congress has the power - but not the duty (Score:2)
So it's legitimate to suggest that the Federal government stops doing a post office, just as it doesn't hand out privateer licences any more.
Re: (Score:1)
Why don't you take your anarcho-capitalism and fuck off to some country where this is appreciated. Somalia maybe?
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck the USPS, what we need is a last mile solution. And how we need to get that is to [literally?] hold the telco execs' feet to the fire until they give us what we paid for. Seriously, all this snail mail is dumb. It should just be packages.
Re: (Score:2)
Americans have no appreciation for having a functional postal system.
Re: Fake News (Score:2)
I've yet to see a country with a functional postal system. Pretty much all of them seem to deliver more junk than actual mail. That's pretty dysfunctional.
Re: (Score:2)
Americans have no appreciation for having a functional postal system.
It was awesome once. Now it's stupid. What year is it? We're still sending information back and forth on slips of paper?
Re: (Score:2)
Congress should allow USPS to specifically charge Amazon more than others, on the grounds of preventing monopoly. Unfortunately that would be unpopular with consumers (and would violate Postal Neutrality). Maybe Trump's attempt of shaming USPS publicly into feeling stupid for helping Amazon would have some effect.
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe you missed the goddam point that the pussy grabbing asshat was taking a jab at WaPo.
Re: (Score:3)
It's true that I never grabbed you.
Re: (Score:2)
seriously? USPS operates at a loss, Trumps says they should charge more then to be profitable (or not run at a loss) and its an attack on fake news from a left-wing news site?
Maybe he's more interested in the fiscal issues of subsidising the postal service and hitting the near-monopoly (and tax avoiding) user of the service is a good soundbite. But I guess it doesn't matter what he does, you're so indoctrinated Trump will always be bad. He could hand out free puppies to all children, and you'd scream and co
Re: (Score:1)
USPS doesn't operate at a loss because of Amazon you insensitive clod.
Goddammit pay attention to TFA.
Re: (Score:1)
I know they are going to mod you down so I'll say it a little more softly.
President Trump tweets something bizarre in order to distract everyone from other news less favorable to him.
His behavior towards his daughter is creepy.
He's accused by over a dozen women of sexually assaulting them and he said on tape that he sexually assaults women ("grabs them by the pussy") because he can get away with it because he's rich and famous.
I disagree on Russia. Mr. Trump has screamed in fear a couple times now includin
Re: (Score:2)
Now that Net Neutrality is gone, can Postal Neutrality be far behind?
Re: (Score:2)
Works OK in the UK, to a point. Businesses that send a lot of post get a preferential rate, hence all the junk mail we enjoy (well, I enjoy putting it in the shredder). I guess that's not "neutral" as it charges differently to different customers.
Re: (Score:2)
Selling stuff in bulk doesn't break neutrality, at least as long as they sell it to any legal business that wants to buy in bulk.
Re: (Score:2)
Selling stuff in bulk doesn't break neutrality, at least as long as they sell it to any legal business that wants to buy in bulk.
Only if by "bulk" you mean shipping containers instead of parcels. Delivering 1000 packages for Amazon should cost exactly the same as delivering 1000 packages for 1000 different individuals (assuming they all dropped off their packages at the same post office). Doing anything else does not conform to neutrality, as that would punish the smaller players simply due to their inability to negotiate a deal. This is highly anti-competitive and it's exactly what net neutrality is supposed to prevent.
Re: (Score:2)
Volume discounts are normal in most any business. Here there is network neutrality but it doesn't stop my ISP from doubling my bandwidth for 30% more cost even though I'd be using 2 households of regular bandwidth.
Likewise the post office here gives deals if you buy a bunch of stamps at once. As long as they aren't playing favourites, it's neutral.
Likewise as long as everyone who shows up with a thousand packages gets the same deal, it's neutral.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be 100% unconstitutional for Congress to pass a bill allowing the USPS to charge Amazon more than others. That's called a Bill of Attainer. At best Congress would have to pass a bill identifying a class of customers, but doing so is likely to cement Amazon's dominance, not reduce it, as it would impact all Amazon's competitors.
Also worth noting: just because the USPS makes a loss doesn't mean they make a loss on everything. Their contract with Amazon is almost certainly a major profit center: wh
It's not just common sense (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
it's unconstitutional. It's against the law to write laws that single out an individual or individual group.
Really?
Felons, as a group and as individuals can't own or be in possession of guns.
Prisoners, as a group or an individuals, are not free to assemble or roam about the country.
Children, as a group and as individuals, cannot own a beer joint
You make extend the list
Re: (Score:1)
it wouldn't surprise me if he got the Post Office to rescind postal neutrality as well. Which would be hilarious as it would mostly harm those that voted for him.
Almost all of Trumps policies disproportionally hurt those who voted for him.
Re: Fake News (Score:2)
If the USPS raised rates because it was selling below cost and Amazon raised their price because they were shipping below cost then this is how it is supposed to work. Trump is right that the USPS shouldn't be subsidizing Amazon. But what would likely actually happen is that Amazon would switch to other carriers and/or increase the amount they deliver directly and the USPS would likely just lose that business completely.
Re: Fake News (Score:2)
Yes but the moron himself runs the USPS or âoeUnited States Post Officeâ (does that even exist?). How can someone b!tch about an organization they themselves run? Itâ(TM)s like he is officially declaring himself to be an idiot. Second, is it legal for a president to punish and interfere with the private sector in this manner? Last I checked, private entities and people should not be subject to defamation by the government unless without due process and a trial. If any other president told peo
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but the moron himself runs the USPS or âoeUnited States Post Officeâ (does that even exist?). How can someone b!tch about an organization they themselves run? Itâ(TM)s like he is officially declaring himself to be an idiot.
The president neither runs nor sets the prices for the USPS. He does though have a giant soapbox that he can use. Complaining about the prices charged and requesting congress to help him change them is probably an appropriate job for the president if the president really believes this to be true.
Second, is it legal for a president to punish and interfere with the private sector in this manner?
Even though the president doesn't run the USPS, the USPS is owned and managed by the USA government. The USPS is not private.
Re: (Score:2)
Raising prices isn't how it "is supposed to work". If it was, making money would be easy. Open a store, keep raising prices until you make a profit.
Amazon charges $0 for a lot of their shipping and they are making money despite charging less for shipping than the cost of shipping.
USPS isn't subsidizing Amazon, they are offering a service at a price and Amazon and every other person who ships items through the USPS pays that price. That the USPS overall is losing money is more complex than what they charg
Re: Fake News (Score:2)
Besides, even if the USPS charged more, how many of you would bet that Amazon wouldn't just simply pass the rate hike on to consumers? Any businessman worth half his salt would do that.
Every business passes on every regulatory and other cost on to it's customers, because that is where 100% of their revenue comes from - the only money a company has is the money it collects from it's customers.
I remember years ago when the gov't passed a new tax to be applied to every telephone account - the idea was to soak the rich telecos, but the telcos simply added a line item to everyone's phone bill and directly passed that new tax on to their customers.
Gov't tried to force the telcos to stop itemizi