Right, and that exposes the reality that the USPS is at best, a state run subsidization scheme for rural mail delivery. But if that's the case, why subsidize it indirectly through selectively inflated prices, which regressively hurt poor people in urban markets)?
Sounds like if the problem is that rural mail is socially important, we ought to subsidize it directly.
Sounds like if the problem is that rural mail is socially important, we ought to subsidize it directly.