Protecting competition from the postal monopoly
Read Online

Protecting competition from the postal monopoly by J. Gregory Sidak

  • 767 Want to read
  • ·
  • 61 Currently reading

Published by AEI Press in Washington, D.C .
Written in English



  • United States.,
  • United States


  • United States Postal Service -- Management.,
  • Privatization -- United States.,
  • Postal service -- United States -- Management.,
  • Government business enterprises -- United States -- Management.,
  • Government monopolies -- United States.

Book details:

Edition Notes

Includes bibliographical references (p. [165]-177) and indexes.

StatementJ. Gregory Sidak, Daniel F. Spulber.
ContributionsSpulber, Daniel F.
LC ClassificationsHE6371 .S55 1996
The Physical Object
Paginationxv, 195 p. ;
Number of Pages195
ID Numbers
Open LibraryOL803599M
ISBN 100844739502
LC Control Number95040078

Download Protecting competition from the postal monopoly


“Postal Monopoly: An Assessment of the Private Express Statutes” by John Haldi and Joseph F. Johnston Jr. examines the performance of the US Post Office and its successor, the US Postal Service. In contrast, few if any corresponding rules protect competition in other areas from the federal government’s postal monopoly. Not only are the Postal Service’s competitive’ activities arguably unrestricted by any explicit application of antitrust law, but public ownership and control exempt the Postal Service’s actions from the corporate governance that is characteristic of private enterprises. Monopoly in Postal Services The collection and delivery of mail in many countries is placed is the hands of a single operator. Part of the reason for this is that private firms might charge those who live in rural or remote parts of the country much higher prices to reflect the additional costs of servicing these cus- .   The FTC’s competition mission is to enforce the rules of the competitive marketplace — the antitrust laws. These laws promote vigorous competition and protect consumers from anticompetitive mergers and business practices. But when it .

  That’s because the post office is a government-protected monopoly; 19th century laws make it illegal for anyone else to deliver letters. It’s also exempt from state and federal taxes and free from most government regulations. That combination is a recipe for disaster. However, of the three, only the USPS is a monopoly based on the political concept. Only it has achieved dominance in its market through protection from competition by the government. In fact, not only are Microsoft and Wal-Mart not monopolies based on the political concept, they are actually victims of .   A coercive monopoly results from a government grant of exclusive privilege. Government, in effect, must take sides in the market to give birth to a coercive monopoly. It must make it difficult, costly, or impossible for anyone but the favored firm to do business. The U.S. Postal Service is an example. By law no one else can deliver first-class. Monopoly. In terms of the number of sellers and degree of competition, monopolies lie at the opposite end of the spectrum from perfect competition. In perfect competition, there are many small companies, none of which can control prices; they simply accept the market price determined by supply and demand.

Criterion Economics, Inc. | Expert Damages Litigation Witness. Tell a friend about Book Post Subscribe, Receive free updates, Befriend, Follow Help build a connected world through books. When it comes to the tech giants, such as Facebook and Google, Teachout identifies ambitions that extend far beyond market power. Their interest in absorbing competition applies not just to commodities and even ideas, but.   U.S. Accuses Google of Illegally Protecting Monopoly A victory for the government could remake one of America’s most recognizable companies and the internet economy that it . With legal protection from competition, however, the USPS grows complacent and inefficient, losing billions of dollars annually. The Post Office’s legal protection turns a potentially efficient.