Comment by Art9681
2 years ago
The problem is that if a really successful private business does compete, or many, then that takes away from the revenue the Australia Post can reinvest into its operations. Now in this theoretical scenario, Australia Post has a choice to make. Close shop, since the reduced pool of customers and thus revenue is not sufficient to fund its current worker pool. Or raise prices and innovate. Or operate at a loss (who does that?), or be subsidized by tax payers one way or another. And then you end up right back into the current state of economics, which is inevitable, and operates as its own organism and agenda.
I would think shipping to Australia is something any outside business would avoid given the cost of it being in BFE. So naturally a solution was implemented to keep its citizens happy. If it was as cheap to ship to Australia as it is to ship between borders, Australia Post wouldnt exist.
Yes, absolutely, its complicated. Do the state owned companies compete on quality or price? Are they required to cater to all segments of the market? How much of a loss can they take and for how long before they are closed down? Do you run separate orgs in each state and have them competing among themselves?
They are all hard problems, and its unlikely we would make the right decisions every time.
But I think its an interesting thought experiment.
Its certainly atleast trying to do something.
In a way this would be like cap the % profits. And just like capping the profits… you cant do that because why should the super effective companies get punished and not gain massive profit!
There is a contradiction in our system - if the companies drive the prices down they digg their own grave. And since they have to grow not stagnate then at some point they need to stop driving prices down and also more and more fuck people over.
So it is greed. Imagine companies that wouldnt grow.