What is the most effective way to deliver my mail?

[HoreTore]

I've never heard that perspective before. What is the logic behind that? Surely there would be no government without commerce, making it far more important than the government itself? Furthermore, what government communication besides taxes and draft notices even happen over the mail anymore?

As Kukri said, documents you want a hard-copy of. If you ever have any dealings with the government, especially some kind of dispute, you'll want hard-copies. And the government loves to create extreme amounts of documents, all of which you'll need.

Remember that the justice system(and I'm talking about every aspect here, not just the criminal code, but also things like business law, etc) is a very important part of the government. And a lot of us will have to deal with that at least once during our life.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

That's a good point, although it's kind of twisted that we have enough bureaucracy to make government communique have more volume than actual productive commerce.

[Dîn-Heru]

A removal of the postal monopoly probably wouldn't end up as HoreTore schetches in the OP. It simply wouldn't be profitable. Especially in remote areas, so we would still only have one mail-service delivering mail to the mailboxes. (in an area). So it is very unlikely that the EU-directive will end up with Norway having competing end-to-end postal services.

Opening the postal market could mean lower costs for businesses (who send most of the mail). Probably bigger benefit for mid-range businesses that have much outgoing mail, but not enough to cut a deal with Posten (the Norwegian postal service). The benefits to society also depends on where in the distribution chain new companies establish themselves.

It must also be said that this directive only apply to letters weighing 50 grams or less. Packages have been subjected to competition for some time now. Which I belive have increased the opportunity for express delivery and other services. (Don't have any numbers, so this is pure speculation on my part.) This has a backside though, as many delivery companies have been established that are now having trouble due to the economic disturbances (but the current situation is special, so this isn't really an argument against more competition in this market).

Sweden abolished its monopoly in 1993, and the effects don't seem bad.

I don't think the directive will bring much change (if any). So I don't think the benefits are large enough to bother changing the law. All this being said though, it is not the end of the world if it does get introduced.

For more information:
http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/SD/...ort_050309.pdf (A report to the Norwegian government on the possible effects of the directive) (sorry in Norwegian, can't seem to find an English version, its 57 pages so I doubt most would bother to read it anyway)

A ("biased") source: http://www.cep.eu/fileadmin/user_upl..._2006__594.pdf

[Vladimir]

Thank you. It makes much more sense than "F capitalism." And you posted links.

[KukriKhan]

I've never heard that perspective before. What is the logic behind that? Surely there would be no government without commerce, making it far more important than the government itself? Furthermore, what government communication besides taxes and draft notices even happen over the mail anymore?

An excerpt from Ask.com, citing the original Postal Service Act, which pre-dated the Declaration of Independence:

The United States Postal Service first began moving the mail on July 26, 1775, when the Second Continental Congress named Benjamin Franklin as the nation's first Postmaster General. In accepting the position, Franklin dedicated his efforts to fulfilling George Washington's vision. Washington, who championed a free flow of information between citizens and their government as a cornerstone of freedom, often spoke of a nation bound together by a system of postal roads and post offices.

Publisher William Goddard (1740-1817) first suggested the idea of an organized U.S. postal service in 1774, as a way to pass the latest news past the prying eyes of colonial British postal inspectors.

Goddard formally proposed a postal service to Congress nearly two years before adoption of the Declaration of Independence. Congress took no action on Goddard's plan until after the battles of Lexington and Concord in the spring of 1775. On July 16, 1775, with revolution brewing, Congress enacted the "Constitutional Post" as a way to ensure communication between the general populace and the patriots preparing to fight for America's independence.

emphasis mine. I note that our experience in the US doesn't solve HoreTore's quandry. I'm just answering AlexanderthePG's question. I don't think commerce or government is more important than the other - they're intertwined. Commerce's funds enable gov't spending, gov't enables and enhances commerce. Both contribute to the freedom of citizens/consumers to vote - either by ballot or pocketbook.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Full Disclosure: I am a US postal employee; and one of those whacky guys who thinks our Congressional Record should be mailed weekly to every registered voter in the country.

Add in a "stop withholding" for Federal taxes and you'll make me even happier! Note: I do not mean don't PAY your taxes, I just don't want them withheld in advance. I want us all to see exactly how much we are taxed because we have to write a quarterly check AND see what we're buying with it by reading the Congressional Record.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Sure we can tell Norway what to do. Norway follows EU regulation to the letter. Yet it has no control on this regulation (nearly) whatsoever.

This is what you get when a population is too insular and nationalistic to join the EU, yet the political and other elites are too aware of the benefits of EU regulation to esschew the EU. To join would be political suicide, whereas to not follow EU regulation would mean bankruptcy.

Fine with me. We'll keep bossing our colony Norway around until they'll insist on 'no legislation without representation!'

I might be wrong here, cher Louis, but I suspect that the Norwegians are likely to counter that they're adopting those ideas they deem fit and useful while reserving the right to cordially request that the EU travel to the theological place of eternal punishment.

[Dîn-Heru]

I might be wrong here, cher Louis, but I suspect that the Norwegians are likely to counter that they're adopting those ideas they deem fit and useful while reserving the right to cordially request that the EU travel to the theological place of eternal punishment.

In theory this is true, in reality we have yet to veto a directive in the EEA-treaty.

(In fact I think I have heard that we are quicker to introduce them than some EU countries. But, I don't remember the source, so it might have been populistic rhetoric from one or more of the political parties that oppose the EEA and the EU.)

[Crazed Rabbit]

Alright. I got three letters today. My question then, is which of the three following ways of delivering them is the most effective, and which leaves me with the biggest smile on my face:

Option A: One postman delivers all three at the same time.
Option B: First, one postman comes and delivers one letter. An hour later, another postman comes to deliver the remaining two letters.
Option C: One postman delivers one letter. An hour later, another postman comes to deliver the second letter. Another hour after that, a third postman comes to deliver the last letter.

Now, I'm rather confident that option A is the most effective one. But please, could any of you market-libby yuppies out there please explain to me why I would want option B or C?

Yes, this is about mail, that's not a metaphor for capitalism in general. More specifically, it's about the new EU rules banning postal monopolies, thus forcing me to choose option B and C.

Almost short-sighted just to consider how the goods arrived at the final destination, isn't it? You're seeing but a fraction of the overall picture here. If the first option is so efficient, why are there additional companies? How could they compete if option A was the most efficient?

After the US allowed companies to compete with the USPS for shipping, didn't shipping costs drop?

Short answer, no. This isn't driven by any real need. This is motivated solely by the belief in the "market above all else". In short, market-liberalism. Idealism at its very worst.

Really? Getting rid of a monopoly is 'idealism at its very worse'? Not the cultural revolution in China or any other horrible thing?

Free trade can go to hell.

Wow. It's like reading about people who think we should have debtor's prisons.

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

I might be wrong here, cher Louis, but I suspect that the Norwegians are likely to counter that they're adopting those ideas they deem fit and useful while reserving the right to cordially request that the EU travel to the theological place of eternal punishment.

No, I am afraid it really works the way I described it. Norway follows EU regulation to the letter. EU directives are simply faxed to Oslo, which then implements it. As Din-Heru says: in reality we have yet to veto a directive in the EEA-treaty.

This is most unfair of course, and I am very frustrated by Norway's and Iceland's free ride in this manner. They receive all the benefits of EU legislation and government efforts, without contributing to the costs of it. It is time they started coughing up. (To be fair, they do contribute financially to some common services)

My sole consolation is that we can boss them around at will like this. As a non-member, Norway has no direct influence over the legislative processes. We decide for them. Without them having any say in the process whatsoever. A bit like we used to treat our mandate territories, like Syria or Cameroon.