Trump: Post Office loses $1.50 on avg for each package it delivers for Amazon

So you're saying you prefer these cheap Chinese products be sold first to American merchants, and then resold to US consumers? More American merchants will make money through arbitrage but it's effectively money spent by consumers to subsidize merchants. There isn't any real value being created. And fewer products will be sold, making entry to interesting maker or hobby projects prohibitively expensive.

If I need some cheap diodes and caps, I'll hit aliexpress rather than spend 20x the markup for the exact same product on Amazon.

There will be no citation. It's just another outright lie.

Your second question is the key: the USPS exists to encourage business. It loses money on most, if not all, package plans it has with businesses. It does not seek to gain profit.

I've been hearing this from conservative friends/relatives for months now before Trump started speaking out and have tried like heck to find a citation or rebuttal and am very interested in one.

The Post Office is self-funded, consumes ZERO tax dollars, and only has financial trouble because it has been hobbled by politicians looking to make sure it can't perform optimally.

(obvious connotation here is to favor privatization)

The Post Office is in the Constitution, it must exist, and it must be run by the Federal Government. Opponents seek to make it difficult for the Post Office to perform, because they can't currently just get rid of it.

The public interest isn't well served in all of this either.

President Bush "Reformed" the Post Office in a couple notable ways:

One, the Post Office is being required to pre-pay retirement and other benefits decades in advance. This shows as a liability in the present and that bolsters the, "Post Office is losing money" arguments. They are otherwise invalid.

Two, bulk rate structures were changed to favor big publishing and delivery, forcing the Post Office to maximize it's performance in return for little to no margin on those packages. That's actually a subsidy to big private interests, and it's funded by ordinary people paying postage, as those rates are higher now.

Small publishing, niche business pays more, essentially. While this kind of thing makes sense for a private institution, it doesn't for the Post Office, which has a goal to serve everyone equally.

Net profit from the Post Office operations typically goes into the General Budget. Interestingly, this means a more successful Post Office, able to price postage and structure operations in an optimal way, can serve the public interest by paying down things like Iraq war debt. Many examples are to be had here. It's a no brainer.

Now, I do agree picking on Amazon for taking advantage of the current postage rate structure makes no sense. All big operations will do that, and it was intended that they do.

The subsidy is actually to big business, and it's again, funded by ordinary people and smaller operations paying higher than warranted postage.

Rather than look at the Post Office as a business, a look at it as a public work, it's goal to serve the public interest, with that being, "To promote the general welfare", yields an excellent opportunity to show how self-funded public works can shine and deliver strong economic benefits to the entire nation.

Not to mention, further enhance the benefit of our improved communications and the potential for economic activity they bring.

Like the Interstate Highway Project, doing this would bring opportunity to everyone in the nation, regardless of where they live, and that was the original intent behind the Post Office, along with insuring our nation is one unified nation in it's ability to communicate effectively throughout the homeland.

What is needed here is a return to the original charter, an end to the insane pre-payment requirements, and a postage rate structure that serves the public interest far better than the current one does.

Yes, that will bring more meaningful competition to private carriers, and that's a good thing. They don't have to serve everyone equally, and it's more than obvious there is room for all players here.

Without that competition, we will not see optimal cost and productivity, as the private players can always cherry pick and serve only those who benefit them for profit.

Finally, politics are extremely relevant here. Very few understand the Post Office is self funded, not a tax dollar consuming entity. Self-funded means it serves the public interest rather directly.

Even with the egregious hobbling in play, the Post Office performs in the public interest in generally exemplary fashion. It's hard to point to something else public that has done so well for us.

Rather than continue to attempt to marginalize a clear public policy success, we should be looking hard at the Post Office model and how we can use it to "promote the general welfare."

Private interests oppose this, and understandably so. They see opportunity denied them, and potential to get wealthy reduced.

But, that's penny wise and pound foolish. As the private carriers clearly show, there is more than enough room for specialized services and those performing them are making a ton of money too.

What gets missed in all of this is the direct economic stimulus successful public programs present to the economy. Where public works can distribute and reduce the cost and risk exposure ordinary people face, the effect is a net increase in liquid dollars, which drives demand, and that means opportunity for private players increases as well as potential returns.

Subsidized by whom? The USPS didn't receive any tax dollars.