The New York Times Might Regret Publishing That Column on Sexual Abuse in...
The Four Horsemen of the New Antisemitism
Former Staffer Says Congressman Made Her 'Uncomfortable' in Text Message Exchange
Senate Votes Down Iran War Powers Resolution, but Another Republican Has Defected
Gavin Newsom's 'Press Office' Responds to Inmate Tablet Scandal
Mike Johnson Warns That 'Little Mamdanis' Want to Build a Socialist Utopia in...
'Unprecedented Threat:' Routine Maintenance Found an IED at an Alabama Dam
The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty Just Sued the State Over Its...
Karen Bass Has Another Welfare Scheme That's a Kick in the Teeth for...
Gavin Newsom's About to Announce His Final California Budget Proposal, and It's Going...
Graham Platner Called a Maine Police Chief 'Trash' Over BLM Stance
The New York Times Doubles Down, Defends Op-Ed That Made Horrific Accusations Against...
How Did Memorial Drive Shooter Got Gun in Heavily Regulated Massachusetts?
Gavin Newsom Spent $189 Million for CA Prisoners to Watch Adult Content and...
Karen Bass Can’t Handle Spencer Pratt’s Brutal AI Campaign Ads
OPINION

Should the USPS Diversify into Nonpostal Markets?

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
Should the USPS Diversify into Nonpostal Markets?

One possible solution offered up for the struggling U.S. Postal Service is to allow it to diversify into nonpostal commercial markets (e.g., insurance, logistics, banking, etc). After all, the share of revenue generated from diversified products at foreign posts has been on the rise and in many cases now accounts for the majority of a post’s revenue.

Advertisement

However, a new paper from postal expert Michael Schuyler concludes that the USPS entering “new nonpostal commercial ventures would probably end badly.” Here are some of the important takeaways from Mike’s paper:

  • “When foreign posts move into nonpostal markets, they often extract large sums from postal ratepayers and the government (which ultimately means taxpayers) to cover start-up costs.” The USPS is bleeding red ink and thus doesn’t have money for start-up costs – so it doesn’t take a genius to see where the money would have to come from.
  • When it comes to nonpostal commercial ventures, the USPS has an abysmal track record. Mike cites a Government Accountability Office report that looked at new postal products introduced over a two-year period and notes that “Among the nonpostal products on the list were retail merchandise sales (profitable), several electronic initiatives (all money losers), and the processing of credit card payments (unprofitable).”
  • Diversified products at foreign posts usually earn lower returns compared to industry averages. “Below-average profits suggest that when postal operators enter nonpostal commercial markets, they displace more efficient private-sector businesses, leading to less productive and vibrant economies.”
Advertisement
  • Would the USPS and its new private sector competitors operate on a neutral playing field? That’s doubtful. As I note in an essay on postal privatization, the USPS already enjoys several privileges including exemptions from taxes and various regulatory requirements. Mike notes that “special breaks [for the USPS] would misallocate resources, raise fairness issues, and might have high costs for the overall economy.”

In sum, it’s a really bad idea. Unfortunately, policymakers in Washington have a soft spot for bad ideas.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement