It is established economic theory not just some opinion . Constraints in form of regulations, subsidies, tariffs by government intervention will produce inefficiencies.

This is the core economic philosophy behind both the modern centre right[2] i.e. neoliberal democrats (80s-today) and the right wing republican conservatives (pre MAGA -2016).[1]

Even communists would agree this is correct, it is understood in different levels since Adam Smith invisible hand, from far left to centre left just posit that different polices that benefit the people not the economy are worth the cost .

That is actually true for all other groups except anarchists and libertarians all agree government intervention is needed in some form, they just disagree on how .

——-

Postal services anywhere in the world are inefficient by design. They are governed by universal service obligation principles not efficiency same with telecom providers and other utilities.

The question then becomes how much inefficiency is acceptable given the objectives . There are no right answers, you could have competing private couriers who dump unprofitable low density routes to USPS while serving profitable ones themselves (UPS, fedEX, Amazon ) or you could have gigantic postal service which is sole delivery provider socialist style, there are going to be some problems either way.

It is just matter of preference which set of trade offs we are okay with .

—-

[1] Post MAGA it is a populist party economically there is no fixed ideology to be characterized

[2] the centre right label is economic and technical to contrast say the socialist left party of FDR/New Deal 1930-70s, not meant to offend.

▲

treyd 3 days ago | parent [-]

But that's exactly the thing, where we care about an industrial capacity for its strategic reasons rather than because we're trying to maximize efficiency of revenue extraction. Pure market efficiency is great if you're trying to maximize profits, but that's not necessarily the goal here because the benefits are indirect, just as they are with universal postal service (or universal healthcare, etc).

	▲	manquer 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Maximize economic output not necessarily profit outside of that I agree with your comment, nobody is questioning whether we should have other goals. The problem is however first can we all define the goals consistently and agree on the definition. Next can we measure the value/benefits of the goal. This is typically subjective so everybody paints the picture best suited to their preconceived ideas. Finally perception drives the political will for a social program. UBI style programs or just giving money in welfare instead of in-kind benefits for food or healthcare etc or rehabilitation over punishment are more efficient and while shown to work, will rarely get political support because of how they are perceived. Given that we all have different understanding of the goals, measure them differently and have different moralities on what should be done as society (for welfare, crime etc) and have varying degrees of influence over policy what can we do to approach a problem better