this post was submitted on 30 May 2025

166 points (99.4% liked)

Canada

10606 readers

1006 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 Sports

Hockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Toronto Blue Jays

Basketball

Toronto Raptors

Soccer

Main: /c/CanadaSoccer
Toronto FC

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

General:
- Canada Politics
- FairVote Canada
Federal Parties (alphabetical):
- Animal Protection Party of Canada
- NDP
By Province (alphabetical):
- BC Greens

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

166

Opinion | Privatizing Canada Post would be a costly mistake (www.thespec.com)

submitted 5 months ago by Sunshine@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca

39 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 46 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] shani66@ani.social 57 points 5 months ago (4 children)

Had privatization ever worked out? Like, ever?

[–] Alaik@lemmy.zip 30 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I was trying to think of a single example where it made the service better and I legitimately can't?

[–] Glide@lemmy.ca 29 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Because it is never the service that privatization seeks to make better. Private corporations make more money. That is the only target metric.

[–] Kichae@lemmy.ca 16 points 5 months ago

Yeah. The rich go from funding it as a service, via their taxes, to making income off of it, via dividends. Everybody wins!

So long as you're only counting the rich.

[+] Jamablaya@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Glide@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

So, the capitalist brainrot belief is that Adam Smith's invisible hand is going to make sure that money only goes to the people who deserve it, because people obviously will buy the best product at the cheapest prices and everyone else deserves to be pushed out of the market unless they do better.

Except we have consistant evidence that that isn't true. The raw existence of marketing and advertising completely undermines the core concept of what is supposed to make private business good. "We'll just make sure we're the name people know and appeal to their cultural wants" is a complete subversion of how businesses are supposed to function. And then there's the reality that once businesses have reliabily built themselves into the cultural needs of people, they don't need to care anymore: see the process of enshitification in the mass of new business concepts - streaming services, 2nd party food deliver apps, etc. - and this becomes obviously true.

On paper, providing a better service should result in higher income. In reality, there are a million manipulatable factors to undermine this concept, and as we continue to argue that wealth is an inherent virtue, we'll continue to give perceived moral superiority to the private businesses that will pull the plug on your grandmother's life support if it will save them a dollar. Fuck that. The more services we can keep our of the hands of greedy CEOs and venture capitalists, the closer we are to a genuinely just world.

[–] Jamablaya@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This is a very long winded way to admit the existence of gullible and foolish people

[–] Glide@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

So "gullible and foolish people" deserve to be abused by corporate interests? We aren't supposed to build a world that benefits everyone, regardless of how "gullible and foolish" they are?

[+] Jamablaya@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Glide@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Corporations should be allowed to lie and abuse people who aren't knowledgeable or practiced enough to avoid it, because they deserve it?THAT'S your take?

You know, I knew I recognized that name from somewhere. You're that one who was trolling around here pre-election spreading misinformation that I got into an argument about over your completely insane perspective on the Liberals destroying Canadian identity. I'm glad I get to share a message with you post election, so I can point, proudly, to the way Canada happily rallied together under a Liberal banner, sporting a national togetherness that we certainly haven't seen since the selfish, Conservative nutjobs started doing their damnedest to sow division and tear us apart to their benefit before and through the Covid era. I'm not shocked that, in the brief 5 minutes I gave your account to figure out why I recall your name, I saw a majority of your posts filled with vitriol and hatred, while you continuously deny objective reality and dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as being intellectually stunted. Losing the election and watching Canadian's rally together must really be shaking your world view, and since the only real responses are to adapt and grow, or lash out and blame the world, it really is no wonder you're here, spreading hate.

Your completely ethically bankrupt and sociopathic take on the topic at hand here doesn't even deserve a response, but I'm giving you one for the satisfaction of myself and everyone who works to make this world a better place while people with your perspective justify abusive practices and beliefs: fuck you. You should be embarrassed just thinking it, let alone typing it out. Get off social media, stop treating the people you interact with like garbage - if your posts here are any indication of how you speak to people, you are a truly reprehensible piece of shit - get out of your hate-filled bubble, and at least try to experience the world from a perspective other than the one that bred this abhorrent, inexcusable take. Or, just fuck off.

[+] Jamablaya@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Glide@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Ruined the place for people like you, maybe. An act I can be quite proud of.

[–] Jamablaya@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

450,000 thousand immigrants this year, 2 or three million the last 5. You're gonna learn what being this fucking stupid means over the next decade, probably have already, but pride and propaganda and such makes it hard for people who don't understand the sunk cost fallacy to change course.

[–] Glide@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

pride and propaganda and such makes it hard for people who don't understand the sunk cost fallacy to change course.

I mean, I know conservatism is nothing but a series of projections, but this is just impressive. I really don't think I could have said it better myself.

[+] Jamablaya@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Glide@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

It just makes me sad that you seem to believe the things you say.

C'mon man, we've been through this song and dance. You are perpetuating lies that have been fed to you by people who realized that it's easier to stoke fear than build unity. Just because you believe it doesn't mean it is anything but misinformation.

I know I tore into you earlier, but watching you continue to lick the boots of the people who are hurting you is just sad.

[–] Jamablaya@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

How the fuck could the people who have not been in charge the last ten years be hurting me? And as far as sowing division, the previous Prime Minister had an insulting name for anyone disagreed with his bullshit, usually "nazi", "racist", something along those lines. Real builder of unity there. I want my fucking rights as a citizen back, enough of this horseshit.

[–] sugarfoot00@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 months ago (4 children)

Privatization of liquor in Alberta has worked out amazingly well. Booze is cheaper and there's a liquor store every 100 meters, some open well past midnight. It's an alcoholic's dream.

[–] Alaik@lemmy.zip 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

TIL Alberta had state run liquor stores. I'll have to read about those when I get home.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 months ago

TIL Alberta had state run liquor stores.

At one point every province did.

[–] Krudler@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I mean to an alcoholic in the small scale it sounds like it's working out great.

But Canada's recently done a study that shows the taxation gained from alcohol consumption is far less than the deleterious societal costs.

Effectively the government loses money on every bottle it taxes.

edit: This is known as Canada's alcohol deficit. It was first studied in 2014 which showed a taxation intake of ~11 Billion while the social costs were estimated to be ~15B resulting in a deficit of about ~4B. believe the 2020 study showed the alcohol deficit is up to ~6B a year now. I'm lazy, but here's one link for those who'd like to know more:

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/reports-publications/health-promotion-chronic-disease-prevention-canada-research-policy-practice/vol-40-no-5-6-2020/alcohol-deficit-canadian-government-revenue-societal-costs.html

[–] TheBloodFarts@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 months ago

Beer in Alberta is far more expensive than in any other province

[+] Jamablaya@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Krudler@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I think Quebec has (or at one time had?) the lowest because you're not required to have collision insurance. You can have just liability, but if your car is a piece of shit you're not required to insure it for repair should an accident occur. I could be wrong, and I'd love to know if I am.

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

you're not required to have collision insurance. You can have just liability, but if your car is a piece of shit you're not required to insure it for repair should an accident occur

Are there places where this isn't the case?

[–] Krudler@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

In my city you are required to have both liability and collision even if the car is worth a dollar. That is true across all of Canada to my knowledge, with the exception of Quebec.

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 months ago

In my city you are required to have both liability and collision even if the car is worth a dollar.

I'd be curious what city, but obviously you don't have to answer that.

That is true across all of Canada to my knowledge, with the exception of Quebec.

Then you would be misinformed, because collision coverage is certainly not mandatory in Alberta, and I doubt it's mandatory anywhere

[–] 9488fcea02a9@sh.itjust.works 10 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I was talking to someone about this very same postal issue, and his example was DHL. "Privatization turned them around! They're now an international company!!!"

Why the fuck does canada post need to be competing internationally? Just deliver the mail and have a gov't presence in small towns to provide other services.

Just spend the money to service canadians... It doesnt have to be profitable nor an international competitor

Also, DHL sucks...

Had privatization ever worked out? Like, ever?

Yes. It works out really nicely for our oligarchs.

[–] LostWon@lemmy.ca 7 points 5 months ago

It works for politicians who do the usual sleight-of-hand around "fiscal responsibility," and for the eventual shareholders.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

There are some examples in places like Russia where things like the privatization of the food system has led to more options for citizens, but it was a rough transition and much of the privatization just ended up in more corrupt systems.

[–] thijsje@social.vivaldi.net 4 points 5 months ago

@BlameThePeacock @shani66 To add to this. The privitization of the Dutch energy market did drive down costs for the consumers.

It worked.

Untill the war in Ukraine. That wiped out any consumer gains and then some as we got hit with the full force of the exploded gasprices.

[–] Stalinwolf@lemmy.ca 13 points 5 months ago

Steve Boots has some good videos discussing the whole ordeal. Highly recommend him to fellow left-leaning Canadians. He's a former teacher and has managed to teach me far more than I ever hoped to learn on my own.

https://youtu.be/RlO3uL10yKY

[–] IronKrill@lemmy.ca 11 points 5 months ago

No need for an opinion tag if you're spitting straight facts

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 6 points 5 months ago

Some things make financial sense but not in a national security, social security, or unity sense. Privatizing utilities generally falls into one of those categories. I was arguing with my brother once about privatizing the local telco and he said it wasn't profitable. I responded with, "So? It never had to be profitable." There were certainly problems with it, and the expense was one of them, but it hasn't really gotten much cheaper after privatization, although a lot of people who could afford to buy stocks made a lot of money. And don't ask why, when our company was converted to publicly traded, we all didn't get stocks in it. Saying that out loud just proclaims it for the money grab it was.

[+] toastmeister@lemmy.ca -6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

Can I ask why package delivery should be a public service?

I can understand making things with inelastic demand like healthcare a public service, or natural monopolies like cell phones, but do amazon package deliveries need to be government funded?

[–] saigot@lemmy.ca 9 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Because it makes the country a better place to live.

[+] toastmeister@lemmy.ca -6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

You're essentially taxing people for a convenience. You could do the same with streaming services, gyms, and all manners of things.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Why stop there? Clean water is a convenience isn't it? What about fire departments? That's a convenience. People could do these things on their own. They should be rugged individualist and always take care of themselves right? Why do we need roads? People should just pave their own roads right?

[–] toastmeister@lemmy.ca -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Why stop there? Clean water is a convenience isn’t it? What about fire departments? That’s a convenience. People could do these things on their own. They should be rugged individualist and always take care of themselves right? Why do we need roads? People should just pave their own roads right?

I believe water is done privately, as are utilities. Roads are obviously difficult to do when managing the various tolls, and eminent domain, an issue package delivery would never run into. Fire department I think you'd run into issues with housing density, given you can just let peoples house burn down without affecting others.

But I can understand the desire I suppose, I just feel like we are subsidizing private corporations. I'd at least like a law that required it was free shipping only for Canadian companies or maybe Canadian product.

[–] Jamablaya@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago

Fucking city boys. People sort out their own water all the damn time without whining.

[–] saigot@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You could do the same with streaming services, gyms, and all manners of things.

Yes I agree!

[–] toastmeister@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

A minimum income can do it better, with less waste on things people don't prioritize. A poor person wants better quality food, not a gym membership.

[–] sugarfoot00@lemmy.ca 5 points 5 months ago

Public services are also required when providing a service to service level expectations wouldn't be profitable otherwise. We expect and demand that the post office deliver to every remote outpost in the country for whom there is no alternative, regardless of expense. Those deliveries could be anything, including something like medication. If you privatize it, a private company would immediately and naturally cut loose those unprofitable routes.

So in that way, it is an awful lot like healthcare. If you consider postal service a right, then it's functionally no different.