monopolies don't work

the u.s. post office apparently can't keep its head above water. congress, the general accounting office, and a presidential commission, say it's going to need drastic rate increases or a taxpayer bailout (but the postal worker labor union leader is in denial, and "does not accept the notion that the Postal Service is failing").

the internet has largely been blamed for the post office's dire condition, although it wasn't doing too great before that. it seems folks are so happy with the conveniece of the internet, but are unwilling to shift our idea of how society should work - of course now we can pay bills online, that's great! just scale down post office services and raise rates.

that's one solution. but why is privatization never discussed? an association representing folks who market via mail said that "In short, a viable Postal Service is vital to the future of [our] members and our industry." NO, actually, a mail system is vital to the industry, just as an email system is vital to spamers. that does not have to be a government monopoly like the postal service.

as a monopoly the post office didn't react to changing technological trends and customer preferences. should we reward such behaviour?

Labels: economics