Is Elizabeth Warren the Smartest Person in U.S. Politics

[Winstonm]

Here is the link for an article about expanding the duties of the postal service to act as a bank in areas where capitalism demands a profit that acts as a de facto penalty on the less fortunate.

[hrothgar]

Here is the link for an article about expanding the duties of the postal service to act as a bank in areas where capitalism demands a profit that acts as a de facto penalty on the less fortunate.

 

Yesterday, I had the following interaction with my Postal Carrier that was right out of Seinfeld

 

1. The carrier rings my doorbell and asks him to meet him up front

2. I put on pants and wander to the entrance hall (the joy of working from home on a snowy day)

3. The postal carrier complains that my box is full of mail and that I need to empty it

4. I ask him to show me what needs to be delivered. Upon inspection, it consists of a thick pile of junk mail, unwanted uncatalogued and magazines, and fliers.

5. The postal carrier explains that, be that as it may, my mail box still needs to be empty so he can deliver this

6. I respond that I fail to see that this is my problem and wander back inside.

[kenberg]

Here is the link for an article about expanding the duties of the postal service to act as a bank in areas where capitalism demands a profit that acts as a de facto penalty on the less fortunate.

 

In fact this is already being done at some modest level, so the proposal would expand this service rather than break entirely new ground. We sent some money to someone in the following way: Becky took money to the post office and indicated who was to receive it and where. The post office sent a message to the sister post office announcing the deposit of funds. The recipient went to the post office and got the money. Becky tells me that this is far cheaper and easier than wiring money. There was a bit of a glitch, the intended post office did not have the funds readily available so either there was a wait or a trip to a different post office. I imagine that the intended expansion would eliminate that problem.

 

Now is it a good idea to sharply increase the financial services available at a post office? Perhaps, perhaps not. No doubt there is already security at a post office but it is pretty low key. If we are going to be holding large sums of cash at every post office in the U.S. that could be a challenge.

[kenberg]

Yesterday, I had the following interaction with my Postal Carrier that was right out of Seinfeld

 

1. The carrier rings my doorbell and asks him to meet him up front

2. I put on pants and wander to the entrance hall (the joy of working from home on a snowy day)

3. The postal carrier complains that my box is full of mail and that I need to empty it

4. I ask him to show me what needs to be delivered. Upon inspection, it consists of a thick pile of junk mail, unwanted uncatalogued and magazines, and fliers.

5. The postal carrier explains that, be that as it may, my mail box still needs to be empty so he can deliver this

6. I respond that I fail to see that this is my problem and wander back inside.

 

The guy has a job to do. With modest effort on your part you can make his job easier, or you can wander back inside and make his job harder. Seems like an easy choice.

[helene_t]

4. I ask him to show me what needs to be delivered. Upon inspection, it consists of a thick pile of junk mail, unwanted uncatalogued and magazines, and fliers.

In Denmark and the Netherlands, the post office hand out stickers to put on your postbox saying that you don't want junk mail. I suppose that you don't have such a system in the U.S. but maybe some postmen would respect it if you put a home-made sticker on your box?

[Winstonm]

I'm just glad to see someone in U.S. politics (from either side of the aisle) more interested in finding solutions to problems than in promoting a brand.

[gwnn]

http://i.imgur.com/l8nf8EO.gif

[kenberg]

In Denmark and the Netherlands, the post office hand out stickers to put on your postbox saying that you don't want junk mail. I suppose that you don't have such a system in the U.S. but maybe some postmen would respect it if you put a home-made sticker on your box?

 

There are many houses in my neighborhood with signs saying "No free papers". With mail it might be trickier. Most of it comes from respectable merchants, they are simply advertising stuff that I don't want. But one person's junk mail is another persons great opportunity. I think we are stuck with it until we make it economically unfeasible. There is no reason that they cannot put up their ads online and, if the mailing cost were high enough, they non doubt would do so.

 

Or we could get a cat like the one above.

[blackshoe]

In Denmark and the Netherlands, the post office hand out stickers to put on your postbox saying that you don't want junk mail. I suppose that you don't have such a system in the U.S. but maybe some postmen would respect it if you put a home-made sticker on your box?

If we did that, we would probably find that doing so is illegal. It is illegal in the US, or it was, I haven't checked it lately, for anyone other than a postal carrier (for things incoming to the residence) or resident (for outgoing mail) to put anything in a mailbox. It's also illegal (or, again, was) to write anything on mis-delivered mail. People nonetheless take mis-delivered mail intended for their neighbor out of their own box and put it in the neighbor's.

[y66]

In Denmark, they also have Birgitte Nyborg. No wonder they have more progressive options for dealing with junk mail.

[y66]

Just talked to my mailman. He said the FTC has opt out options that can help reduce unsolicited mail and phone calls. This looks like a good place to start.

[blackshoe]

I signed up for the "do not call" registry several years ago. I still get unsolicited sales calls. :(

[kenberg]

I signed up for the "do not call" registry several years ago. I still get unsolicited sales calls. :(

 

Yes, where there is a lawyer there is a way.They explain that they are not really sales calls, goodness knows, of course not, they are informational messages. Some government agency has reported that a home is broken into every x seconds and a good alarm system blah blah blah

[ggwhiz]

http://i.imgur.com/l8nf8EO.gif

 

There was a dog in South Africa written up for being trained to fetch the mail for a treat when he started ripping bundles apart at the front gate and delivering them one at a time.

[Mbodell]

Here is the link for an article about expanding the duties of the postal service to act as a bank in areas where capitalism demands a profit that acts as a de facto penalty on the less fortunate.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that basic financial services should be provided by the gov't to everyone, especially for underserved communities. I don't know if the post office is the right place for this, but they do have locations nearly everywhere so it seems to make some sense.

 

I expect there will be resistance to this with the usual 2 arguments that conservative politicians and talking heads make:

 

1. Any gov't run thing must be inefficient by definition and the private sector is much better at this sort of thing.

2. This is unfair competition as it isn't fair to ask the private sector banks to have compete with gov't run entities.

[kenberg]

I guess I would like to hear just what problem it is that would be solved. I can imagine that in some rural areas the nearest bank may be quite a distance away, but often the Post Office is also. Where I live, it's three miles to the bank, three and a half miles to the Post Office. Where I lived before, the bank was walking distance away, I have trouble remembering just where the Post Office was, but not very close. Growing up, it was a mile to the Post Office and a mile and a half to the bank. All in all, it doesn't seem like proximity is a major issue, at least not in urban areas. Would the Post Office offer new services?

 

People correspond online and pay their bills online so perhaps the Post Office is looking for something to justify its continued existence. Bringing us ads from Macy's will only take them so far, and I think even that service may be precarious if we ever get the will to price it properly. So we have all these buildings and I suppose we should find some use for them.

 

The article says that only 37% said they would never use it. But 8% said they would use it often. Not exactly a high demand.

[blackshoe]

My credit union's nearest branch is about eight miles from here, but there's a 24 hour drive through ATM not far from Wegman's Supermarket, maybe four miles from here. The Post Office is along the same road, about two and a half or three miles away. <shrug>

 

I don't use the post office much anymore. I get far more incoming mail than I send out - and I don't get much incoming, particularly if you discount the junk.

 

That said, if the post office finds a market for itself, and can compete without sucking up my tax dollars, more power to 'em. If they can't, well, so long, post office.

[Winstonm]

I guess I would like to hear just what problem it is that would be solved. I can imagine that in some rural areas the nearest bank may be quite a distance away, but often the Post Office is also. Where I live, it's three miles to the bank, three and a half miles to the Post Office. Where I lived before, the bank was walking distance away, I have trouble remembering just where the Post Office was, but not very close. Growing up, it was a mile to the Post Office and a mile and a half to the bank. All in all, it doesn't seem like proximity is a major issue, at least not in urban areas. Would the Post Office offer new services?

 

People correspond online and pay their bills online so perhaps the Post Office is looking for something to justify its continued existence. Bringing us ads from Macy's will only take them so far, and I think even that service may be precarious if we ever get the will to price it properly. So we have all these buildings and I suppose we should find some use for them.

 

The article says that only 37% said they would never use it. But 8% said they would use it often. Not exactly a high demand.

This link will explain the problem. (emphasis added)

 

So any attempt at figuring out the poverty tax is an imperfect art. But if you add up all the revenues the payday lenders and check cashers and subprime credit-card companies and the other businesses listed above collect, and divide it by the 40 million households the Federal Reserve says live on less than $30,000 a year, that works out to around $2,000 per household.

 

The poverty tax? For all those scraping by on less than $20,000 a year—the assistant manager at a fast-food restaurant, say, or a Walmart associate or a home-health-care worker—that works out to annual poverty tax of at least 10 percent

[kenberg]

Let's look at a portion:

 

The corner check casher takes the biggest bite, at least from those 20 million or so Americans who have no bank account—the so-called unbanked. In the main these are people who’ve messed up their relationship with a bank. They’ve bounced so many checks that no bank wants them as a customer. Or they’ve racked up so many fees they have dug too expensive a hole from which to escape.

 

I don't doubt the truth of this, but how would having financial services in Post Office help? Are there henceforth to be no consequences for repeatedly bouncing checks? It seems unlikely that doing business at the Post Office will somehow change a person from check bouncer to careful money manager. So "They’ve bounced so many checks that no bank wants them as a customer." will no longer apply?

 

The question is not whether some people are in very bad shape. They are, of course they are. The reasons vary, but many lives are a mess. But how will having banking services in a Post Office help with this? In short, other than finding a new use for old buildings, what will be different?

[mike777]

Wben you reject capitalism as the best economic system out of poverty the discussion of a philosopher king begins.

[Winstonm]

Let's look at a portion:

 

 

 

I don't doubt the truth of this, but how would having financial services in Post Office help? Are there henceforth to be no consequences for repeatedly bouncing checks? It seems unlikely that doing business at the Post Office will somehow change a person from check bouncer to careful money manager. So "They’ve bounced so many checks that no bank wants them as a customer." will no longer apply?

 

The question is not whether some people are in very bad shape. They are, of course they are. The reasons vary, but many lives are a mess. But how will having banking services in a Post Office help with this? In short, other than finding a new use for old buildings, what will be different?

 

Not everyone who is poor bounces checks or has awful credit. Post office/bank will help some. There are others who it will not help.

[kenberg]

Not everyone who is poor bounces checks or has awful credit. Post office/bank will help some. There are others who it will not help.

 

Of course. I have never thought or suggested otherwise. But the problem still remains of who this is to help and how. I had not heard abut this initiative until you posted the article. I am not necessarily opposed but the more I think about it the more skeptical I become.

 

Questions that occur to me:

 

When money was very tight for me, I had a checking account and I deposited my check. I gather that, for those who don't bounce checks, this can still be done. So this initiative will help them how?

 

Is this initiative expected to help those who bounce checks or those who don't, and just how?

 

Here, for example, is a thought experiment. Suppose we agree that paying heavy fees to cash a check is something we would like to fix. How? People with a checking account don't need to pay, or at least don't need to pay heavily, to have their payroll checks converted to cash. The target clientele are, I guess, those who don't have an account. The second article you cited suggests that, for these people, this is because their past behavior makes them unacceptable to banks. Would the Post Office service allow them to open and to keep a checking account even if they regularly bounced checks? Or, if not, would they simply convert the check to cash and send them on their way, money in pocket? This latter would seem to involve having a very large amount of cash on hand on Fridays.

 

You don't have to be Milton Freeman to accept that there are reasons markets behave as they do. Before you attempt to circumvent this you need to evaluate these forces and have a plan for coping with them. Perhaps this is being done, but as of the moment I don't see it. Just saying that we will have the Post Office provide financial services is not enough of a plan.

[Bbradley62]

Suppose we agree that paying heavy fees to cash a check is something we would like to fix. How? People with a checking account don't need to pay, or at least don't need to pay heavily, to have their payroll checks converted to cash.

When my finances were such that I could not get a checking account, I was still able to get a savings account, with ATM (not debit) card, into which I had my paycheck direct-deposited.

[y66]

If the market opportunity is $89 billion per year and the USPS can partner with, say, American Express, on a deal that nets each of them $5 billion a year while providing useful financial services at lower costs to the 25 percent of Americans who are currently underserved by the banking system, more power to them indeed.

 

The Inspector General of the US Post Office thinks this may be possible and that small market tests in key geographical areas can be used to prove the concept before expanding it system wide.

[barmar]

The services mentioned in the article aren't checking and savings accounts. It says they're bill-paying, check-cashing, and small loans. Currently, if you don't have a bank account, and you want to cash a paycheck or pay a bill, you have to go through services that charge exorbitant fees. But the people in this situation tend to be those who can least afford these fees.