USPS vs. FedEx

I’m really just looking to hear what everyone else thinks about this. I work at the USPS, but honestly, the whole situation feels pretty shady. It seems like FedEx is just gobbling up more and more of our market share. And that's not even talking about the actual quality of service. In my opinion, it feels like management is intentionally handing business over to FedEx just to let them dismantle the USPS and everything else in the American postal system. As employees working the counters, we're getting squeezed every single day. We're expected to fight to keep customers and push new products and services, yet at the same time, leadership is letting FedEx take away more and more of our core delivery work—things like utility bills, bank statements, and basic mail. If they actually wanted to win, maybe they should have just undercut FedEx's prices right when they started to knock them out of the market. But instead, we're just watching them take more of our business every day.

Dammit, that’s just how the market works. It's survival of the fittest out there.

The second the CEO of that outfit ended up behind bars at the biggest federal penitentiary in the country, I knew things were about to get messy. Something is definitely going down behind the scenes.
Isn't USPS basically a government entity?
If that’s the case, then why on earth does Walmart charge like half the commission just to pay utility bills?
And now we’ve got The New York Times Company throwing around claims about stuff being free, though who knows if that’s even true.
I mean, if people actually catch on to that, how are they supposed to pull in any customers? Why would anyone bother paying for something when they don't have to?

It looks like you’re just some massive government dinosaur finally waking up to the market because competition actually showed up. Before this, you had a monopoly dating back to the old era, which clearly lulled you into a coma. As far as I know, Citigroup pays much lower wages, so it makes perfect sense why JP Morgan Chase and a few others jumped ship to compete on lower overhead. They’re probably run more efficiently, work harder, and don't carry all that dead weight in staffing. That’s how they broke through. Regardless of whatever shady dealings landed the owner in prison.

... and perhaps most importantly, they simply don't offer services in places like rural Nebraska or small towns in Ohio.
And honestly, don't even get me started on the coverage in places like rural Mississippi or deep in the heart of West Virginia.

Anthony Morales3 said:I’m really just looking to hear what everyone else thinks about this. I work at the USPS, but honestly, the whole situation feels pretty shady. It seems like FedEx is just gobbling up more and more of our market share. And that's not even talking about the actual quality of service. In my opinion, it feels like management is intentionally handing business over to FedEx just to let them dismantle the USPS and everything else in the American postal system. As employees working the counters, we're getting squeezed every single day. We're expected to fight to keep customers and push new products and services, yet at the same time, leadership is letting FedEx take away more and more of our core delivery work—things like utility bills, bank statements, and basic mail. If they actually wanted to win, maybe they should have just undercut FedEx's prices right when they started to knock them out of the market. But instead, we're just watching them take more of our business every day.

Why don't you put your hand up for CEO when the next vacancy opens? Just send an email to the shareholders suggesting they overhaul the entire board, since you and your crew would surely do a better job. Please. To claim the board is merely political appointees because the state owns the company? That's a convenient excuse to avoid facing reality, rather than spinning some conspiracy theory.

The Universal Postal Union website hosts several insightful documents detailing how state postal services have adapted to modern demonopolization. For instance:
- hybrid mail services
- closing small branches and authorizing local retailers—even bars in rural towns—to handle package intake
- subscription models for eBay sellers, allowing them to print all documentation and prepaid postage labels from home

I recall seeing a registered parcel sent from Mexico once; it featured a clean, adhesive barcode containing all the tracking data. You just slap it on the envelope, which is far more efficient than manually transcribing details for official correspondence. It comes down to basic business acumen and market adaptation. The monopolies once held by national carriers are steadily evaporating. The market will decide who survives. There isn't much deep philosophy to it. Further liberalization is expected over the next few years per European Union mandates, and frankly, massive state-run postal monopolies are becoming a relic everywhere else in the world.

Furthermore, if a private institution like JP Morgan Chase, which previously relied on HP Inc., were to decide to switch over to FedEx, I fail to see how that could theoretically be construed as some sort of "shady deal." 🤷

silverraven7 said:The second the CEO of that outfit ended up behind bars at the biggest federal penitentiary in the country, I knew things were about to get messy. Something is definitely going down behind the scenes.
Isn't USPS basically a government entity?
If that’s the case, then why on earth does Walmart charge like half the commission just to pay utility bills?
And now we’ve got The New York Times Company throwing around claims about stuff being free, though who knows if that’s even true.
I mean, if people actually catch on to that, how are they supposed to pull in any customers? Why would anyone bother paying for something when they don't have to?

I am currently looking at the New York Times:

Standing in line just to settle your bills and utility payments is an exhausting waste of time. Honestly, just head over to a New York Times Company kiosk and get it done there instead.

Quick and easy—paying your bills at a kiosk is straightforward.
Skip the lines and stay secure. If you want to settle your bills without the headache of waiting in a crowded lobby or dealing with unnecessary risks, using a kiosk is the way to go. It’s fast, efficient, and keeps things simple.
Minimize your transaction fees by paying your bills through our most cost-effective channel.

The New York Times Company provides a detailed breakdown on their website regarding how they handle billing and invoicing for their various products. It’s all laid out there if you actually care to look.

And naturally, the IRS has handed us yet another headache to deal with. It’s a simple matter of survival now: adapt or get left behind. Times are changing, whether we like it or not.

The thread title is inaccurate.
In the States, we don't have a company called City Express; it's UPS.
There used to be a firm under that first name, but it was dissolved. One might find themselves wondering why an owner would shutter one entity only to establish another offering identical services. And more importantly, who exactly permitted such a maneuver?
The downfall of HP Inc. was no accident. Up until this point, there were countless opportunities to steer things differently if the will had been there. But it wasn't.
One immediate thought comes to mind: the automation of bill payments. If AT&T could implement such systems, surely they could have done the same.

As for Walmart and The New York Times Company, it isn't even worth discussing. They will likely follow the same pattern seen with the cigarette industry, where small retailers were squeezed out. It’s the same story for half of our agriculture and other industrial sectors. This new acquisition should be stripped from them immediately, and we should treat them exactly how Americans treated AT&T.

Gregory Hall66 said:The thread title is inaccurate.
In the States, we don't have a company called City Express; it's UPS.
There used to be a firm under that first name, but it was dissolved. One might find themselves wondering why an owner would shutter one entity only to establish another offering identical services. And more importantly, who exactly permitted such a maneuver?
The downfall of HP Inc. was no accident. Up until this point, there were countless opportunities to steer things differently if the will had been there. But it wasn't.
One immediate thought comes to mind: the automation of bill payments. If AT&T could implement such systems, surely they could have done the same.

As for Walmart and The New York Times Company, it isn't even worth discussing. They will likely follow the same pattern seen with the cigarette industry, where small retailers were squeezed out. It’s the same story for half of our agriculture and other industrial sectors. This new acquisition should be stripped from them immediately, and we should treat them exactly how Americans treated AT&T.

UPS changed its name once they were acquired by new owners—a foreign investment fund, which was heavily covered in the press. Besides, incorporating, rebranding, or liquidating companies is perfectly legal; you don't need special permission, so I'm not sure what you mean by "who allowed him"? While postal services are still largely under the monopoly of the USPS, even that is gradually eroding. The fact that the USPS hasn't modernized in years and continues to act like a state-sanctioned monopoly is a failure of their own management. I haven't seen any job postings lately looking for actual experts to overhaul their operations...

Gregory Hall66 said:The thread title is inaccurate.
In the States, we don't have a company called City Express; it's UPS.
There used to be a firm under that first name, but it was dissolved. One might find themselves wondering why an owner would shutter one entity only to establish another offering identical services. And more importantly, who exactly permitted such a maneuver?
The downfall of HP Inc. was no accident. Up until this point, there were countless opportunities to steer things differently if the will had been there. But it wasn't.
One immediate thought comes to mind: the automation of bill payments. If AT&T could implement such systems, surely they could have done the same.

As for Walmart and The New York Times Company, it isn't even worth discussing. They will likely follow the same pattern seen with the cigarette industry, where small retailers were squeezed out. It’s the same story for half of our agriculture and other industrial sectors. This new acquisition should be stripped from them immediately, and we should treat them exactly how Americans treated AT&T.

Walmart is under the oversight of the Federal Trade Commission.

goldengull3 said:Why don't you put your hand up for CEO when the next vacancy opens? Just send an email to the shareholders suggesting they overhaul the entire board, since you and your crew would surely do a better job. Please. To claim the board is merely political appointees because the state owns the company? That's a convenient excuse to avoid facing reality, rather than spinning some conspiracy theory.

The Universal Postal Union website hosts several insightful documents detailing how state postal services have adapted to modern demonopolization. For instance:
- hybrid mail services
- closing small branches and authorizing local retailers—even bars in rural towns—to handle package intake
- subscription models for eBay sellers, allowing them to print all documentation and prepaid postage labels from home

I recall seeing a registered parcel sent from Mexico once; it featured a clean, adhesive barcode containing all the tracking data. You just slap it on the envelope, which is far more efficient than manually transcribing details for official correspondence. It comes down to basic business acumen and market adaptation. The monopolies once held by national carriers are steadily evaporating. The market will decide who survives. There isn't much deep philosophy to it. Further liberalization is expected over the next few years per European Union mandates, and frankly, massive state-run postal monopolies are becoming a relic everywhere else in the world.

To cut down on overhead, the Dutch Postal Service started shutting down about 250 locations across the country back in 2008. They just finished the whole process yesterday by closing their last standing office in Philadelphia—well, the Philly equivalent—and according to officials, this move was all about boosting efficiency and saving some cash. Nowadays, postal services in the Netherlands are handled through around 2,600 service points located inside retail stores and supermarkets.

ruggeddriver70 said:To cut down on overhead, the Dutch Postal Service started shutting down about 250 locations across the country back in 2008. They just finished the whole process yesterday by closing their last standing office in Philadelphia—well, the Philly equivalent—and according to officials, this move was all about boosting efficiency and saving some cash. Nowadays, postal services in the Netherlands are handled through around 2,600 service points located inside retail stores and supermarkets.

Look, we all know how it goes—one group makes mistakes while the other thrives. Just look at the GDP trends if you want proof. 🙂

I mean, HP is probably gonna follow the lead of those guys in the Netherlands eventually. It’s just a matter of when. If the IMF steps in—it'll happen way sooner.

goldengull3 said:UPS changed its name once they were acquired by new owners—a foreign investment fund, which was heavily covered in the press. Besides, incorporating, rebranding, or liquidating companies is perfectly legal; you don't need special permission, so I'm not sure what you mean by "who allowed him"? While postal services are still largely under the monopoly of the USPS, even that is gradually eroding. The fact that the USPS hasn't modernized in years and continues to act like a state-sanctioned monopoly is a failure of their own management. I haven't seen any job postings lately looking for actual experts to overhaul their operations...

Walmart is under the oversight of the Federal Trade Commission.

Precisely. It is a common tactic: individuals acquire a successful enterprise and then simply rename it so their existing clientele can no longer recognize it.
Or perhaps they retain nearly identical names, logos, branding, and portfolios, merely changing the title on the door. And lo and behold, suddenly they have no outstanding obligations toward the business partners of the former entity.
On paper, if necessary, pink elephants can fly through the sky too. In fact, they have every right to do so. 😁

goldengull3 said:UPS changed its name once they were acquired by new owners—a foreign investment fund, which was heavily covered in the press. Besides, incorporating, rebranding, or liquidating companies is perfectly legal; you don't need special permission, so I'm not sure what you mean by "who allowed him"? While postal services are still largely under the monopoly of the USPS, even that is gradually eroding. The fact that the USPS hasn't modernized in years and continues to act like a state-sanctioned monopoly is a failure of their own management. I haven't seen any job postings lately looking for actual experts to overhaul their operations...

Walmart is under the oversight of the Federal Trade Commission.

It is an open question why such a massive public service has been allowed to stagnate. If it truly isn't profitable, why would investment Funds bother pouring money into certain sectors of it?
One only needs to look at how the postal service operates in Mexico. It is quite remarkable. They actually operate with a profit.
Is this a matter of our own "incompetence," or is it something else entirely?

goldengull3 said:UPS changed its name once they were acquired by new owners—a foreign investment fund, which was heavily covered in the press. Besides, incorporating, rebranding, or liquidating companies is perfectly legal; you don't need special permission, so I'm not sure what you mean by "who allowed him"? While postal services are still largely under the monopoly of the USPS, even that is gradually eroding. The fact that the USPS hasn't modernized in years and continues to act like a state-sanctioned monopoly is a failure of their own management. I haven't seen any job postings lately looking for actual experts to overhaul their operations...

Walmart is under the oversight of the Federal Trade Commission.

Once again, we arrive at the same conclusion: paper and pink elephants.
Is it not under the oversight of that very same agency while they are busy signing contracts with Coca-Cola, burning through resources, collecting subsidies, squeezing small retailers, and delaying payments for months on end?

Gregory Hall66 said:Precisely. It is a common tactic: individuals acquire a successful enterprise and then simply rename it so their existing clientele can no longer recognize it.
Or perhaps they retain nearly identical names, logos, branding, and portfolios, merely changing the title on the door. And lo and behold, suddenly they have no outstanding obligations toward the business partners of the former entity.
On paper, if necessary, pink elephants can fly through the sky too. In fact, they have every right to do so. 😁

It is an open question why such a massive public service has been allowed to stagnate. If it truly isn't profitable, why would investment Funds bother pouring money into certain sectors of it?
One only needs to look at how the postal service operates in Mexico. It is quite remarkable. They actually operate with a profit.
Is this a matter of our own "incompetence," or is it something else entirely?

Once again, we arrive at the same conclusion: paper and pink elephants.
Is it not under the oversight of that very same agency while they are busy signing contracts with Coca-Cola, burning through resources, collecting subsidies, squeezing small retailers, and delaying payments for months on end?

If a company undergoes a name change, it remains the same legal entity, so I’m not sure what you're getting at. City Express was acquired by an international fund, underwent some rebranding, and is now expanding just like any other successful corporation. They pay salaries and hire new staff. Unlike certain others, they aren't constantly whining.

Gregory Hall66 said:Precisely. It is a common tactic: individuals acquire a successful enterprise and then simply rename it so their existing clientele can no longer recognize it.
Or perhaps they retain nearly identical names, logos, branding, and portfolios, merely changing the title on the door. And lo and behold, suddenly they have no outstanding obligations toward the business partners of the former entity.
On paper, if necessary, pink elephants can fly through the sky too. In fact, they have every right to do so. 😁

It is an open question why such a massive public service has been allowed to stagnate. If it truly isn't profitable, why would investment Funds bother pouring money into certain sectors of it?
One only needs to look at how the postal service operates in Mexico. It is quite remarkable. They actually operate with a profit.
Is this a matter of our own "incompetence," or is it something else entirely?

Once again, we arrive at the same conclusion: paper and pink elephants.
Is it not under the oversight of that very same agency while they are busy signing contracts with Coca-Cola, burning through resources, collecting subsidies, squeezing small retailers, and delaying payments for months on end?

Get in touch with Zack and ask him to appoint you to the Board of Directors of USPS, then take it up with management. Fire them if they aren't performing. It's really no big deal.

In general, do you truly place that much faith in our politicians? Do you honestly believe they care about the quality of the public services they oversee? You think Kosor is the kind of person who ensures the right people are in those roles? Does Kalmeta give a second thought to the post office? When board members are appointed, expertise comes first, and political affiliation follows.

Gregory Hall66 said:Precisely. It is a common tactic: individuals acquire a successful enterprise and then simply rename it so their existing clientele can no longer recognize it.
Or perhaps they retain nearly identical names, logos, branding, and portfolios, merely changing the title on the door. And lo and behold, suddenly they have no outstanding obligations toward the business partners of the former entity.
On paper, if necessary, pink elephants can fly through the sky too. In fact, they have every right to do so. 😁

It is an open question why such a massive public service has been allowed to stagnate. If it truly isn't profitable, why would investment Funds bother pouring money into certain sectors of it?
One only needs to look at how the postal service operates in Mexico. It is quite remarkable. They actually operate with a profit.
Is this a matter of our own "incompetence," or is it something else entirely?

Once again, we arrive at the same conclusion: paper and pink elephants.
Is it not under the oversight of that very same agency while they are busy signing contracts with Coca-Cola, burning through resources, collecting subsidies, squeezing small retailers, and delaying payments for months on end?

If you're unhappy that Walmart is late on a payment, initiate a foreclosure; at least retail has some cash on hand. They receive incentives because they are agricultural producers, just like everyone else. As for cigarettes, they've already been reprimanded by the FTC. They are being watched, certainly, but Walmart simply isn't large enough to be considered a monopoly.

goldengull3 As goldengull3 once remarked:
If a company undergoes a rebranding, it remains the exact same entity; I fail to see what the grievance is supposed to be. City Express was acquired by an international fund, underwent a necessary rebranding phase, and is now expanding—just like any other successful corporation in this country. They are distributing paychecks and hiring new talent. They aren't sitting around complaining, unlike certain other people.

Shall we all simply pretend to be oblivious now, acting as though we have no idea what we are actually discussing? 😁
But then again, couldn't we simply take a moment to investigate exactly who established this successful enterprise, along with the timing and the specific methods they employed? There really is no need to go through the tedious process of logging into the SEC database to find those answers. Among the founding members, one finds... The "successful" entrepreneur who now maintains absolutely no connection to them..
One could then proceed to draw a direct comparison between the branding of these modern, thriving corporations and that of the aging relic we once knew. Wouldn't the glaringly obvious disparities between the two become immediately apparent? I find myself wondering if we have truly reached a point where any news can be considered credible, or if we are simply drifting through an endless cycle of manufactured updates? Is there any substance left to be found in these recent developments, or are we merely witnessing the same old patterns repeating themselves under different names? One must ask oneself: what is the actual weight of this information, and how much of it is designed solely to distract us from the underlying reality? i Is there anything more profoundly exhausting than the relentless cycle of stagnation we find ourselves trapped in? One begins to wonder if progress is merely an illusion we conjure to stave off the crushing weight of inertia. Does anyone else feel this pervasive sense of being stuck, watching the clock tick while the world remains stubbornly, infuriatingly unchanged? The corporate landscape continues to shift, does it not? I find myself genuinely struck by the recent rebranding efforts taking place within these companies. One has to wonder, is it merely a superficial coat of paint, or is there a deeper strategic evolution at play? Regardless, the transformation is certainly impressive. 🙂
If we could only uncover who exactly sabotaged the negotiations between USPS and UPS, and what their true motivations were for driving away that highly successful investment fund, one wonders where we would stand today. Where might we have arrived if those interests hadn't intervened?
I find myself once again pondering the sheer absurdity of our current trajectory. Is it not fascinating how we consistently stumble into the same pitfalls, convinced that this time, the outcome will somehow differ? One has to wonder if we are truly capable of learning from the past, or if we are simply doomed to repeat these cycles of mismanagement and misplaced optimism. Does anyone else feel this profound sense of exhaustion when observing the endless loop of bureaucratic inefficiency? It seems we are perpetually waiting for a turning point that never arrives, trapped in a cycle that feels increasingly predictable yet remains stubbornly unavoidable.

goldengull3 As goldengull3 once remarked: Why don't you reach out to Zack and suggest he appoint you to the Board of Directors of USPS? Once you have that seat, you could finally demand some accountability from the executive management. If they aren't performing their duties or if they've lost sight of their responsibilities, why shouldn't you just remove them? It really shouldn't be an issue at all. In general, do you truly possess such unwavering faith in our politicians, believing they actually give a damn about the quality of the public services under their control? Do you honestly believe someone like Kosor is capable of appointing the right people to the right positions? Does Kalmeta even spare a single thought for the postal service? When it comes down to appointing a board, do they really prioritize professional expertise, or is political loyalty always the first thing on the agenda?

I cannot help but wonder if Zack might have benefited from a seasoned team of high-priced attorneys prior to this moment, specifically tasked with scrubbing away all that accumulated sediment surrounding the USPS.
It is truly a tragedy to witness such a vital public service being systematically dismantled to satisfy the petty, short-sighted whims of private interests. Is it not a profound failure of governance when an institution that possesses the inherent capacity to be both self-sustaining and a cornerstone of local community support is instead bled dry for the sake of a few small-minded profiteers? One cannot help but wonder how much more could be achieved if this entity were allowed to flourish, serving the very people it was designed to protect rather than acting as a mere feeding trough for the elite.

goldengull3 As if anyone could truly predict the trajectory of such an entity? One must wonder if we are merely witnessing the inevitable slow decay of institutional competence, or if this is something more calculated. Is it possible that what we perceive as chaos is actually a very deliberate, albeit misguided, strategy? I find myself questioning whether any meaningful reform is even on the horizon, or if we are simply rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship.
If you find yourself dissatisfied with the fact that Walmart is dragging its feet on payments, there is always the option to initiate a foreclosure process; at least the retail sector actually maintains a liquid balance sheet. They receive various subsidies simply because they operate as an agricultural producer, just like any other entity in the industry. As for their cigarette business, they have already been reprimanded by the FTC. While they are certainly under scrutiny, one must consider whether Walmart is truly massive enough to be classified as a monopoly.

Frankly, it makes no difference to me; I have zero desire to do business with them. However, it seems quite evident that their "experts" have engineered a system designed to squeeze small business owners—both manufacturers and retailers alike. It is worth noting that they remain one of the largest corporations in America, maintaining a monopoly not just in retail, but across several other sectors as well. While their "specialists" might not explicitly claim such things, as I have noted before, paper trails can be manipulated to say whatever is necessary.
I don't have the energy to go digging through the records, but I find myself questioning whether the government truly owes them those subsidies dating back to 2009. And really, isn't their little scheme involving grain transport just a clever way to line their own pockets?

Gregory Hall66:

Gregory Hall66 As stated by: Let’s all just pretend we're blissfully ignorant and act like we have no idea what we're actually talking about. 😁 Actually, we could easily verify exactly who founded this successful enterprise, along with the timing and the specific methodology behind its inception. There is no need to go through the hassle of logging into the SEC database to find out. Among the original founders, you will find... The "successful" entrepreneur who has since severed all ties with them.. Then we can take the branding of these modern, successful corporations and hold it up against the old guard. The glaring disparities between the two become impossible to ignore. I have nothing new to add at this moment. i I suppose I should have seen this coming. It’s the same old story we see play out in every boardroom from New York to Los Angeles—the predictable decay of an institution that once held some semblance of promise. You watch these cycles repeat themselves, year after year, and you eventually stop being surprised and start feeling just plain exhausted. It’s enough to make a person wonder if anyone actually learns from the mistakes of the past, or if we're all just destined to watch the same slow-motion train wreck over and over again. Regarding the companies involved—I must say, I am quite impressed by the rebranding. 🙂

City Express has been registered under multiple entities for quite some time now—one only needs to glance at the public filings to see that. There is absolutely nothing illicit about it; anyone can establish more than one corporation if they choose. The Fund acquired an entity founded back in 2008 from a group of owners, injected capital, and is currently scaling operations. Again, there is no wrongdoing there. The former owner might have his own baggage, but he’s an ex-owner. He holds no stake here, and even when he did, it was a mere 8%. If you find the rebranding distasteful, that is entirely your prerogative. On a personal note, they just opened an office right here in my neck of the woods near Ivanić. I am perfectly satisfied with the development. Instead of relying on a single postal carrier, I now have two. When a third arrives, I shall welcome them just as warmly. It reminds me of how much I appreciated it when we saw the arrival of Walmart and Target alongside Kroger—it’s the competition and variety that actually benefit us.

Gregory Hall66 said:

goldengull3 As goldengull3 once remarked:
If a company undergoes a rebranding, it remains the exact same entity; I fail to see what the grievance is supposed to be. City Express was acquired by an international fund, underwent a necessary rebranding phase, and is now expanding—just like any other successful corporation in this country. They are distributing paychecks and hiring new talent. They aren't sitting around complaining, unlike certain other people.

Shall we all simply pretend to be oblivious now, acting as though we have no idea what we are actually discussing? 😁
But then again, couldn't we simply take a moment to investigate exactly who established this successful enterprise, along with the timing and the specific methods they employed? There really is no need to go through the tedious process of logging into the SEC database to find those answers. Among the founding members, one finds... The "successful" entrepreneur who now maintains absolutely no connection to them..
One could then proceed to draw a direct comparison between the branding of these modern, thriving corporations and that of the aging relic we once knew. Wouldn't the glaringly obvious disparities between the two become immediately apparent? I find myself wondering if we have truly reached a point where any news can be considered credible, or if we are simply drifting through an endless cycle of manufactured updates? Is there any substance left to be found in these recent developments, or are we merely witnessing the same old patterns repeating themselves under different names? One must ask oneself: what is the actual weight of this information, and how much of it is designed solely to distract us from the underlying reality? i Is there anything more profoundly exhausting than the relentless cycle of stagnation we find ourselves trapped in? One begins to wonder if progress is merely an illusion we conjure to stave off the crushing weight of inertia. Does anyone else feel this pervasive sense of being stuck, watching the clock tick while the world remains stubbornly, infuriatingly unchanged? The corporate landscape continues to shift, does it not? I find myself genuinely struck by the recent rebranding efforts taking place within these companies. One has to wonder, is it merely a superficial coat of paint, or is there a deeper strategic evolution at play? Regardless, the transformation is certainly impressive. 🙂
If we could only uncover who exactly sabotaged the negotiations between USPS and UPS, and what their true motivations were for driving away that highly successful investment fund, one wonders where we would stand today. Where might we have arrived if those interests hadn't intervened?
I find myself once again pondering the sheer absurdity of our current trajectory. Is it not fascinating how we consistently stumble into the same pitfalls, convinced that this time, the outcome will somehow differ? One has to wonder if we are truly capable of learning from the past, or if we are simply doomed to repeat these cycles of mismanagement and misplaced optimism. Does anyone else feel this profound sense of exhaustion when observing the endless loop of bureaucratic inefficiency? It seems we are perpetually waiting for a turning point that never arrives, trapped in a cycle that feels increasingly predictable yet remains stubbornly unavoidable.

goldengull3 As goldengull3 once remarked: Why don't you reach out to Zack and suggest he appoint you to the Board of Directors of USPS? Once you have that seat, you could finally demand some accountability from the executive management. If they aren't performing their duties or if they've lost sight of their responsibilities, why shouldn't you just remove them? It really shouldn't be an issue at all. In general, do you truly possess such unwavering faith in our politicians, believing they actually give a damn about the quality of the public services under their control? Do you honestly believe someone like Kosor is capable of appointing the right people to the right positions? Does Kalmeta even spare a single thought for the postal service? When it comes down to appointing a board, do they really prioritize professional expertise, or is political loyalty always the first thing on the agenda?

I cannot help but wonder if Zack might have benefited from a seasoned team of high-priced attorneys prior to this moment, specifically tasked with scrubbing away all that accumulated sediment surrounding the USPS.
It is truly a tragedy to witness such a vital public service being systematically dismantled to satisfy the petty, short-sighted whims of private interests. Is it not a profound failure of governance when an institution that possesses the inherent capacity to be both self-sustaining and a cornerstone of local community support is instead bled dry for the sake of a few small-minded profiteers? One cannot help but wonder how much more could be achieved if this entity were allowed to flourish, serving the very people it was designed to protect rather than acting as a mere feeding trough for the elite.

goldengull3 As if anyone could truly predict the trajectory of such an entity? One must wonder if we are merely witnessing the inevitable slow decay of institutional competence, or if this is something more calculated. Is it possible that what we perceive as chaos is actually a very deliberate, albeit misguided, strategy? I find myself questioning whether any meaningful reform is even on the horizon, or if we are simply rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship.
If you find yourself dissatisfied with the fact that Walmart is dragging its feet on payments, there is always the option to initiate a foreclosure process; at least the retail sector actually maintains a liquid balance sheet. They receive various subsidies simply because they operate as an agricultural producer, just like any other entity in the industry. As for their cigarette business, they have already been reprimanded by the FTC. While they are certainly under scrutiny, one must consider whether Walmart is truly massive enough to be classified as a monopoly.

Frankly, it makes no difference to me; I have zero desire to do business with them. However, it seems quite evident that their "experts" have engineered a system designed to squeeze small business owners—both manufacturers and retailers alike. It is worth noting that they remain one of the largest corporations in America, maintaining a monopoly not just in retail, but across several other sectors as well. While their "specialists" might not explicitly claim such things, as I have noted before, paper trails can be manipulated to say whatever is necessary.
I don't have the energy to go digging through the records, but I find myself questioning whether the government truly owes them those subsidies dating back to 2009. And really, isn't their little scheme involving grain transport just a clever way to line their own pockets?

I suppose the Fund offered a higher valuation? Ultimately, one has to wonder why anyone would chase a monopoly when healthy competition is clearly the better path. You were quite vocal about opposing the Walmart acquisitions, yet now you seem to be suggesting that postal services should merge rather than actually competing against one another in the market. The postal services have been demonopolized. If the USPS failed to grasp that reality sooner, that's their own damn problem. Even AT&T failed to see the writing on the wall back then, and they ended up hemorrhaging half of their mobile market share in just a few years. It’s the same old story with former state monopolies; from the entry-level staff up to the executive suite, they simply lack the capacity to grasp how the real world works.

Gregory Hall66:

Gregory Hall66 As stated by: I suspect Zack could have used a solid team of attorneys to clear out all that accumulated sediment surrounding the USPS before things got this messy. It is unfortunate that this public service is being bled dry to satisfy petty private interests, when in reality, it could be quite self-sustaining and even support the needs of local communities if managed properly.

Hold on. Are you actually suggesting that Zack won't appoint top-tier talent there? The honest, high-quality professionals who are truly the best in their field? Do you honestly think Sanders didn't appoint the "best" people? Or Kosor? And then you act surprised when they aren't ready to face actual competition? I’m not surprised at all. Honestly, I’d be shocked if they were.

Gregory Hall66 said:

goldengull3 As goldengull3 once remarked:
If a company undergoes a rebranding, it remains the exact same entity; I fail to see what the grievance is supposed to be. City Express was acquired by an international fund, underwent a necessary rebranding phase, and is now expanding—just like any other successful corporation in this country. They are distributing paychecks and hiring new talent. They aren't sitting around complaining, unlike certain other people.

Shall we all simply pretend to be oblivious now, acting as though we have no idea what we are actually discussing? 😁
But then again, couldn't we simply take a moment to investigate exactly who established this successful enterprise, along with the timing and the specific methods they employed? There really is no need to go through the tedious process of logging into the SEC database to find those answers. Among the founding members, one finds... The "successful" entrepreneur who now maintains absolutely no connection to them..
One could then proceed to draw a direct comparison between the branding of these modern, thriving corporations and that of the aging relic we once knew. Wouldn't the glaringly obvious disparities between the two become immediately apparent? I find myself wondering if we have truly reached a point where any news can be considered credible, or if we are simply drifting through an endless cycle of manufactured updates? Is there any substance left to be found in these recent developments, or are we merely witnessing the same old patterns repeating themselves under different names? One must ask oneself: what is the actual weight of this information, and how much of it is designed solely to distract us from the underlying reality? i Is there anything more profoundly exhausting than the relentless cycle of stagnation we find ourselves trapped in? One begins to wonder if progress is merely an illusion we conjure to stave off the crushing weight of inertia. Does anyone else feel this pervasive sense of being stuck, watching the clock tick while the world remains stubbornly, infuriatingly unchanged? The corporate landscape continues to shift, does it not? I find myself genuinely struck by the recent rebranding efforts taking place within these companies. One has to wonder, is it merely a superficial coat of paint, or is there a deeper strategic evolution at play? Regardless, the transformation is certainly impressive. 🙂
If we could only uncover who exactly sabotaged the negotiations between USPS and UPS, and what their true motivations were for driving away that highly successful investment fund, one wonders where we would stand today. Where might we have arrived if those interests hadn't intervened?
I find myself once again pondering the sheer absurdity of our current trajectory. Is it not fascinating how we consistently stumble into the same pitfalls, convinced that this time, the outcome will somehow differ? One has to wonder if we are truly capable of learning from the past, or if we are simply doomed to repeat these cycles of mismanagement and misplaced optimism. Does anyone else feel this profound sense of exhaustion when observing the endless loop of bureaucratic inefficiency? It seems we are perpetually waiting for a turning point that never arrives, trapped in a cycle that feels increasingly predictable yet remains stubbornly unavoidable.

goldengull3 As goldengull3 once remarked: Why don't you reach out to Zack and suggest he appoint you to the Board of Directors of USPS? Once you have that seat, you could finally demand some accountability from the executive management. If they aren't performing their duties or if they've lost sight of their responsibilities, why shouldn't you just remove them? It really shouldn't be an issue at all. In general, do you truly possess such unwavering faith in our politicians, believing they actually give a damn about the quality of the public services under their control? Do you honestly believe someone like Kosor is capable of appointing the right people to the right positions? Does Kalmeta even spare a single thought for the postal service? When it comes down to appointing a board, do they really prioritize professional expertise, or is political loyalty always the first thing on the agenda?

I cannot help but wonder if Zack might have benefited from a seasoned team of high-priced attorneys prior to this moment, specifically tasked with scrubbing away all that accumulated sediment surrounding the USPS.
It is truly a tragedy to witness such a vital public service being systematically dismantled to satisfy the petty, short-sighted whims of private interests. Is it not a profound failure of governance when an institution that possesses the inherent capacity to be both self-sustaining and a cornerstone of local community support is instead bled dry for the sake of a few small-minded profiteers? One cannot help but wonder how much more could be achieved if this entity were allowed to flourish, serving the very people it was designed to protect rather than acting as a mere feeding trough for the elite.

goldengull3 As if anyone could truly predict the trajectory of such an entity? One must wonder if we are merely witnessing the inevitable slow decay of institutional competence, or if this is something more calculated. Is it possible that what we perceive as chaos is actually a very deliberate, albeit misguided, strategy? I find myself questioning whether any meaningful reform is even on the horizon, or if we are simply rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship.
If you find yourself dissatisfied with the fact that Walmart is dragging its feet on payments, there is always the option to initiate a foreclosure process; at least the retail sector actually maintains a liquid balance sheet. They receive various subsidies simply because they operate as an agricultural producer, just like any other entity in the industry. As for their cigarette business, they have already been reprimanded by the FTC. While they are certainly under scrutiny, one must consider whether Walmart is truly massive enough to be classified as a monopoly.

Frankly, it makes no difference to me; I have zero desire to do business with them. However, it seems quite evident that their "experts" have engineered a system designed to squeeze small business owners—both manufacturers and retailers alike. It is worth noting that they remain one of the largest corporations in America, maintaining a monopoly not just in retail, but across several other sectors as well. While their "specialists" might not explicitly claim such things, as I have noted before, paper trails can be manipulated to say whatever is necessary.
I don't have the energy to go digging through the records, but I find myself questioning whether the government truly owes them those subsidies dating back to 2009. And really, isn't their little scheme involving grain transport just a clever way to line their own pockets?

Since you put "experts" in quotation marks, I assume you are an exceptionally gifted, world-class authority on market competition matters? If so, it would be helpful if you could educate us here: in what specific ways is Walmart—to quote you—a "monopoly in retail as well as some other segments"? Please, cite the relevant federal directives and decisions from the appropriate regulatory bodies so we might better understand. Since you enjoy spitting on others—including the FTC, which does excellent work—I assume you possess superior knowledge in this field that you could impart to us laypeople. Feel free to be professional; provide concrete norms, legal precedents, and examples... so we can compare. You shouldn't mock one of the best agencies we have, an agency that approaches its duties with extreme seriousness.

Gregory Hall66 said:

goldengull3 As goldengull3 once remarked:
If a company undergoes a rebranding, it remains the exact same entity; I fail to see what the grievance is supposed to be. City Express was acquired by an international fund, underwent a necessary rebranding phase, and is now expanding—just like any other successful corporation in this country. They are distributing paychecks and hiring new talent. They aren't sitting around complaining, unlike certain other people.

Shall we all simply pretend to be oblivious now, acting as though we have no idea what we are actually discussing? 😁
But then again, couldn't we simply take a moment to investigate exactly who established this successful enterprise, along with the timing and the specific methods they employed? There really is no need to go through the tedious process of logging into the SEC database to find those answers. Among the founding members, one finds... The "successful" entrepreneur who now maintains absolutely no connection to them..
One could then proceed to draw a direct comparison between the branding of these modern, thriving corporations and that of the aging relic we once knew. Wouldn't the glaringly obvious disparities between the two become immediately apparent? I find myself wondering if we have truly reached a point where any news can be considered credible, or if we are simply drifting through an endless cycle of manufactured updates? Is there any substance left to be found in these recent developments, or are we merely witnessing the same old patterns repeating themselves under different names? One must ask oneself: what is the actual weight of this information, and how much of it is designed solely to distract us from the underlying reality? i Is there anything more profoundly exhausting than the relentless cycle of stagnation we find ourselves trapped in? One begins to wonder if progress is merely an illusion we conjure to stave off the crushing weight of inertia. Does anyone else feel this pervasive sense of being stuck, watching the clock tick while the world remains stubbornly, infuriatingly unchanged? The corporate landscape continues to shift, does it not? I find myself genuinely struck by the recent rebranding efforts taking place within these companies. One has to wonder, is it merely a superficial coat of paint, or is there a deeper strategic evolution at play? Regardless, the transformation is certainly impressive. 🙂
If we could only uncover who exactly sabotaged the negotiations between USPS and UPS, and what their true motivations were for driving away that highly successful investment fund, one wonders where we would stand today. Where might we have arrived if those interests hadn't intervened?
I find myself once again pondering the sheer absurdity of our current trajectory. Is it not fascinating how we consistently stumble into the same pitfalls, convinced that this time, the outcome will somehow differ? One has to wonder if we are truly capable of learning from the past, or if we are simply doomed to repeat these cycles of mismanagement and misplaced optimism. Does anyone else feel this profound sense of exhaustion when observing the endless loop of bureaucratic inefficiency? It seems we are perpetually waiting for a turning point that never arrives, trapped in a cycle that feels increasingly predictable yet remains stubbornly unavoidable.

goldengull3 As goldengull3 once remarked: Why don't you reach out to Zack and suggest he appoint you to the Board of Directors of USPS? Once you have that seat, you could finally demand some accountability from the executive management. If they aren't performing their duties or if they've lost sight of their responsibilities, why shouldn't you just remove them? It really shouldn't be an issue at all. In general, do you truly possess such unwavering faith in our politicians, believing they actually give a damn about the quality of the public services under their control? Do you honestly believe someone like Kosor is capable of appointing the right people to the right positions? Does Kalmeta even spare a single thought for the postal service? When it comes down to appointing a board, do they really prioritize professional expertise, or is political loyalty always the first thing on the agenda?

I cannot help but wonder if Zack might have benefited from a seasoned team of high-priced attorneys prior to this moment, specifically tasked with scrubbing away all that accumulated sediment surrounding the USPS.
It is truly a tragedy to witness such a vital public service being systematically dismantled to satisfy the petty, short-sighted whims of private interests. Is it not a profound failure of governance when an institution that possesses the inherent capacity to be both self-sustaining and a cornerstone of local community support is instead bled dry for the sake of a few small-minded profiteers? One cannot help but wonder how much more could be achieved if this entity were allowed to flourish, serving the very people it was designed to protect rather than acting as a mere feeding trough for the elite.

goldengull3 As if anyone could truly predict the trajectory of such an entity? One must wonder if we are merely witnessing the inevitable slow decay of institutional competence, or if this is something more calculated. Is it possible that what we perceive as chaos is actually a very deliberate, albeit misguided, strategy? I find myself questioning whether any meaningful reform is even on the horizon, or if we are simply rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship.
If you find yourself dissatisfied with the fact that Walmart is dragging its feet on payments, there is always the option to initiate a foreclosure process; at least the retail sector actually maintains a liquid balance sheet. They receive various subsidies simply because they operate as an agricultural producer, just like any other entity in the industry. As for their cigarette business, they have already been reprimanded by the FTC. While they are certainly under scrutiny, one must consider whether Walmart is truly massive enough to be classified as a monopoly.

Frankly, it makes no difference to me; I have zero desire to do business with them. However, it seems quite evident that their "experts" have engineered a system designed to squeeze small business owners—both manufacturers and retailers alike. It is worth noting that they remain one of the largest corporations in America, maintaining a monopoly not just in retail, but across several other sectors as well. While their "specialists" might not explicitly claim such things, as I have noted before, paper trails can be manipulated to say whatever is necessary.
I don't have the energy to go digging through the records, but I find myself questioning whether the government truly owes them those subsidies dating back to 2009. And really, isn't their little scheme involving grain transport just a clever way to line their own pockets?

What grain transport? Is that the fairy tale where they were supposedly taking someone's specific grain? By definition, grain is a generic commodity; once it's in a silo, there is no "mine" or "yours," just a right to a certain quantity of whatever is inside. Of course, if you actually have evidence, go ahead and report it.

To wrap this discussion up: USPS is failing for the exact same reasons as the public broadcasters here—they are coddled by the government as a monopoly, yet haven't even realized that 16:9 widescreen and HDTV exist. If a person wants to watch a decent movie, they turn to ABC or NBC, and for a game, they switch to ESPN (which, with significantly fewer resources, has been running HD since the beginning).

The folks over at the USPS—who honestly might as well be selling groceries out of their delivery trucks at this point—are nothing but a shady outfit!

goldengull3 said:Gregory Hall66:

Gregory Hall66 As stated by: Let’s all just pretend we're blissfully ignorant and act like we have no idea what we're actually talking about. 😁 Actually, we could easily verify exactly who founded this successful enterprise, along with the timing and the specific methodology behind its inception. There is no need to go through the hassle of logging into the SEC database to find out. Among the original founders, you will find... The "successful" entrepreneur who has since severed all ties with them.. Then we can take the branding of these modern, successful corporations and hold it up against the old guard. The glaring disparities between the two become impossible to ignore. I have nothing new to add at this moment. i I suppose I should have seen this coming. It’s the same old story we see play out in every boardroom from New York to Los Angeles—the predictable decay of an institution that once held some semblance of promise. You watch these cycles repeat themselves, year after year, and you eventually stop being surprised and start feeling just plain exhausted. It’s enough to make a person wonder if anyone actually learns from the mistakes of the past, or if we're all just destined to watch the same slow-motion train wreck over and over again. Regarding the companies involved—I must say, I am quite impressed by the rebranding. 🙂

City Express has been registered under multiple entities for quite some time now—one only needs to glance at the public filings to see that. There is absolutely nothing illicit about it; anyone can establish more than one corporation if they choose. The Fund acquired an entity founded back in 2008 from a group of owners, injected capital, and is currently scaling operations. Again, there is no wrongdoing there. The former owner might have his own baggage, but he’s an ex-owner. He holds no stake here, and even when he did, it was a mere 8%. If you find the rebranding distasteful, that is entirely your prerogative. On a personal note, they just opened an office right here in my neck of the woods near Ivanić. I am perfectly satisfied with the development. Instead of relying on a single postal carrier, I now have two. When a third arrives, I shall welcome them just as warmly. It reminds me of how much I appreciated it when we saw the arrival of Walmart and Target alongside Kroger—it’s the competition and variety that actually benefit us.

I suppose the Fund offered a higher valuation? Ultimately, one has to wonder why anyone would chase a monopoly when healthy competition is clearly the better path. You were quite vocal about opposing the Walmart acquisitions, yet now you seem to be suggesting that postal services should merge rather than actually competing against one another in the market. The postal services have been demonopolized. If the USPS failed to grasp that reality sooner, that's their own damn problem. Even AT&T failed to see the writing on the wall back then, and they ended up hemorrhaging half of their mobile market share in just a few years. It’s the same old story with former state monopolies; from the entry-level staff up to the executive suite, they simply lack the capacity to grasp how the real world works.

Gregory Hall66:

Gregory Hall66 As stated by: I suspect Zack could have used a solid team of attorneys to clear out all that accumulated sediment surrounding the USPS before things got this messy. It is unfortunate that this public service is being bled dry to satisfy petty private interests, when in reality, it could be quite self-sustaining and even support the needs of local communities if managed properly.

Hold on. Are you actually suggesting that Zack won't appoint top-tier talent there? The honest, high-quality professionals who are truly the best in their field? Do you honestly think Sanders didn't appoint the "best" people? Or Kosor? And then you act surprised when they aren't ready to face actual competition? I’m not surprised at all. Honestly, I’d be shocked if they were.

Since you put "experts" in quotation marks, I assume you are an exceptionally gifted, world-class authority on market competition matters? If so, it would be helpful if you could educate us here: in what specific ways is Walmart—to quote you—a "monopoly in retail as well as some other segments"? Please, cite the relevant federal directives and decisions from the appropriate regulatory bodies so we might better understand. Since you enjoy spitting on others—including the FTC, which does excellent work—I assume you possess superior knowledge in this field that you could impart to us laypeople. Feel free to be professional; provide concrete norms, legal precedents, and examples... so we can compare. You shouldn't mock one of the best agencies we have, an agency that approaches its duties with extreme seriousness.

What grain transport? Is that the fairy tale where they were supposedly taking someone's specific grain? By definition, grain is a generic commodity; once it's in a silo, there is no "mine" or "yours," just a right to a certain quantity of whatever is inside. Of course, if you actually have evidence, go ahead and report it.

To wrap this discussion up: USPS is failing for the exact same reasons as the public broadcasters here—they are coddled by the government as a monopoly, yet haven't even realized that 16:9 widescreen and HDTV exist. If a person wants to watch a decent movie, they turn to ABC or NBC, and for a game, they switch to ESPN (which, with significantly fewer resources, has been running HD since the beginning).

As for HP; any state-run company is basically a breeding ground for nepotism and political cronies. Most of the actual talent probably jumped ship to private firms years ago. So now, HP is stuck without any truly capable organizational leadership—and I don't mean the "capable" type who are busy lining their own pockets. In this age of total market liberalization, they're practically doomed.
And regarding TV... isn't it a little outdated to be channel surfing just to find a good movie when we have high-speed internet and torrents? 😕

USPS