you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]noshore4me 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

From your article: "Amazon is a big enough chunk of USPS revenues that, if USPS lost it, it would materially reduce their revenues without materially reducing their fixed costs"

So, the USPS is deliberately going with a lower rate to prevent Amazon from using UPS as their primary delivery partner. It's not a governmental subsidy, it's the USPS taking a small loss per package to prevent losing the whole business.

[–]peety 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

admittedly, i picked the first article out of my ass. critique these:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardmcgahey/2020/12/17/amazon-gets-billions-while-state-and-local-government-budgets-collapse/

https://www.investigativepost.org/2022/02/09/amazon-subsidies-4-7-billion-and-counting/

my loose point from my first comment, is that the payoff's/bribes/lobbying from amazon is just another way big businesses rape our taxpayers dollars from us. joo greed is behind nearly all the problems in the world. thank you for the reply.

[–]noshore4me 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The USPS doesn't receive tax dollars to operate, it is solely funded by stamps and package fees. So I don't think it fits in this specific instance. Source: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/08/26/how-is-the-u-s-postal-service-governed-and-funded/