- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Our President tweets on Amazon
Posted on 3/29/18 at 5:04 pm to AbuTheMonkey
Posted on 3/29/18 at 5:04 pm to AbuTheMonkey
I come to this board just to see the mental gymnastics the Trumpkins will come up to defend Trump. It's fascinating watching a cult protecting their leader.
1
Posted on 3/29/18 at 5:05 pm to mattloc
quote:
but the United States Postal Service is.
how so?
Posted on 3/29/18 at 5:07 pm to Usafgiles
Can anyone else use your mailbox
Posted on 3/29/18 at 5:10 pm to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
Ol' baw didn't think through his argument very well.
If USPS was giving Amazon such an amazing deal, then why don't think ship all of their parcels using USPS?
I understand the reasons for having multiple strategic vendors and so forth, but if the price difference was that significant, then Amazon could say frick it and just go with one.
Because even the negotiated price with the USPS is more than other alternative cost them in other areas. DUH
Posted on 3/29/18 at 5:11 pm to mattloc
quote:
What is dumb in my opinion is assuming the Washington bureaucrats are good stewards of public funds and competent to run a sophisticated parcel delivery operation at a profit.
I see you spent some time googling up talking points.
quote:
Amazon may not be a monopoly, but the United States Postal Service is.
That will be news to UPS and FedEx.
Posted on 3/29/18 at 5:12 pm to mattloc
quote:
Can anyone else use your mailbox
so now a mailbox is the only way to deliver packages. got it. there are plenty of competitors to the USPS so therefor not a monopoly.
Posted on 3/29/18 at 5:12 pm to tissle
What's interesting are those defending Amazons sweetheart deal and discussing how much money the postal service is earning from Amazon, while th USPS is losing six billion dollars a year.... which coincidentally is about what Amazon makes annually
Posted on 3/29/18 at 5:14 pm to mattloc
quote:
discussing how much money the postal service is earning from Amazon
Because USPS, unlike every other government entity AND every private corporation is saddled with the insane obligation to fund health benefits for 75 years in the future.
quote:
while th USPS is losing six billion dollars a year
Due to the above referenced obligation and mail delivery. Their package delivery is what sorta keeps the whole thing afloat.
Posted on 3/29/18 at 5:15 pm to CorporateTiger
That's what you keep saying... without a solitary shred of evidence to back up your assertion.... not even Google talking points
Posted on 3/29/18 at 5:19 pm to mattloc
The postal service itself has said what I said.
Posted on 3/29/18 at 5:21 pm to mattloc
quote:
That's what you keep saying... without a solitary shred of evidence to back up your assertion.... not even Google talking points
Do you really need a Google link before you accept that delivering packages is far more profitable than delivering standard mail? If the reverse were true UPS would be a mail delivery company, not a package delivery company.
Come on man sometimes it's okay to say "okay I concede your point" during a discussion.
Posted on 3/29/18 at 5:24 pm to CorporateTiger
So now we're going to take the word of a talking head of an organization losing 6 billion dollars anually ....oh well... off to box up some packages $2.66 a package. But if I sell through Amazon I can get shipping at $2.50 per package..... somehow that makes sense to some of you you
This post was edited on 3/29/18 at 5:25 pm
Posted on 3/29/18 at 5:25 pm to mattloc
quote:
What is dumb in my opinion is assuming the Washington bureaucrats are good stewards of public funds and competent to run a sophisticated parcel delivery operation at a profit.
Considering they were $2.7B in the black for parcels last year, I'd say they've got it down pretty well.
quote:
The US postal service stated purpose is to ensure Universal service at a fair price. The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act is designed to prohibit unfair competition..... we do not have all the facts but we do have a study that suggests the United States Postal Service loses $1.46 for every Amazon package it delivers.
For first class mail where they have a monopoly and a clear social mission, sure.
Not for parcels, where they have neither.
And that stupid $1.46 stat has been posted and shown to be clearly wrong every single time it's been mentioned in this and other threads. The entirety of that stat is because of legacy healthcare and pensions of people long ago retired, not operating costs for parcels.
quote:
To my knowledge there are no studies that suggest otherwise. But you point to an annual review conducted by Washington bureaucrats possibly influenced by Amazon lobbyists. We should trust them to make the right decision. Even though that decision negatively impacts other businesses in this country.
Well, one "study" is that USPS' parcel delivery is well into profitability, and Amazon is one of their biggest customers.
Let's see that specific evidence that the PRC is being influenced by Amazon lobbyists.
quote:
Amazon may not be a monopoly, but the United States Postal Service is. Amazon profits by reselling USPS discount rates. Good on them but bad for every other competitor.
USPS is not a monopoly in parcel delivery service, not by a long shot. Amazon profits by reselling USPS discount rates, FedEx discount rates, UPS discount rates, etc., etc.
And it's not bad for every other competitor. Do you not think Walmart.com - who is quickly catching up - has an absolutely massive discount as well? Apple? Home Depot? Dell? Nike? Macy's? Target?
Posted on 3/29/18 at 5:27 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
Come on man sometimes it's okay to say "okay I concede your point" during a discussion.
Any attorney worth his salt would never concede a point....lol... to be honest with you I don't have as big a problem with Amazon discount rates as I do Chinese discount rates
Posted on 3/29/18 at 5:28 pm to mattloc
quote:
to box up some packages $2.66 a package. But if I sell through Amazon I can get shipping at $2.50 per package..... somehow that makes sense to some of you you
Have you never heard of a volume discount? Seriously?
Posted on 3/29/18 at 5:31 pm to CorporateTiger
this thread is awesome 
Posted on 3/29/18 at 5:33 pm to mattloc
quote:
Any attorney worth his salt would never concede a point....lol... to be honest with you I don't have as big a problem with Amazon discount rates as I do Chinese discount rates
But we're not in a court room, we're having a discussion and it's just disheartening. Jesus Christ in another thread right now someone is trying to argue that the President can be obstructing justice just by doing what he is legally entitled to do, for example.
Posted on 3/29/18 at 5:34 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:You're going to have to walk me though this logic, because it sounds like something straight from a textbook that doesn't really relate to the real world.quote:And they'd be willing to work enough to make up the whole $30k without them. That means an increase in labor supply, by definition, relative to the scenario with the entitlements.
If a person needs $30k to live, but gets 'only' $15k from entitlements, that person would likely take an unskilled position that pays $7.50/hr to make up the other $15k.
Obviously the assumption is that taking away handouts would force the unemployed to find work or starve. This would increase the labor supply. This makes sense. Further, the assumption seems to be that those who do work would have to work more to maintain their standard of living. This makes sense to an extent, though it does not account for those who are (or potentially are) skilled who would leave the minimum wage labor pool in search of higher paying jobs. Seems like the answer lies in the ratio between unemployed:unskilled:skilled workers, doesn't it?
But the whole idea is predicated on everyone having their needs met, right? If we take away handouts, the takers will work more in order to meet their needs. But if you continue that trend (of lowering take-home income) via taxation with those whose needs are more than met, then they will work less, right? Isn't that the conservative argument against raising taxes?
So your theory requires that everyone's needs be met, and that requires a certain about of total income. If we reduce the total income by taking away entitlements, then it must be replaced by higher total wages, right?
Posted on 3/29/18 at 5:40 pm to AbuTheMonkey
Why have the United States Postal Service in competition with private Enterprise? Will not private Enterprise do the job more efficiently and cheaply in the long term. The concept of operating at a profit seems to be at odds with the u.s. Postal Services stated purpose. Postage should not constitute a tax, but in my opinion the USPS should function as a nonprofit organization. Returning Surplus to the US taxpayer. I would love to see an independent review of this 2.7 billion dollar alleged profit from package delivery operations last year. If true, would it be the first example of a government Enterprise operating with fiscal efficiency?
This post was edited on 3/29/18 at 5:44 pm
Page 15 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News