If they operated under the government at a loss I think it’s terrible policy. If it’s ran as a for-profit then it’d be fine.
And of course make discounts for people that actually need the service (disabled people and such). But no way I’m paying for lazy 20 year olds that can walk across the street to pick their food themselves, but don’t want to because the government service would be cheap.
The government isn’t a business. It’s a public service and I never hear anyone bitch about the wasteful spending when it comes to the military. I don’t understand why the post office is being treated like a for profit business.
The government is not a business, but it has limited resources as everyone else.
If those resources are spent on delivery drivers, they’re not spent in anything else. I’m not American, but if I were I would much rather those resources be spent on affordable healthcare for everyone than on food delivery for everyone.
Until recently when a bill was passed drastically changing how their retirement accounts had to be funded, the USPS was usually run for profit and was even usually actively profitable year over year. I think they’re still dealing with the fallout of that bill meant to hobble them, but I can’t imagine they’d operate at a loss purposefully.
The USPS even used to offer banking services which was also reported to be widely profitable until legislation was passed eliminating that service. Wouldn’t even be the first time that they had branched out beyond just mail.
Every lazy 20 year old is supporting a restaurant and a delivery driver. You benefit from this via taxes. I think the system could easily be made self-sustaining though while still being cheaper than any private options.
The purpose of an economy is to decide what to output, given the unlimited human desires but limited resources.
If there was a law which gave 100€ to every millionaire, we would be supporting millionaires? Isn’t that good? No it isn’t, just “supporting someone” isn’t good economic policy, it must support outputs that will most benefit the population.
That’s why for it to be remotely viable it has to be self-sustained. Which means that they would not be able to operate further if there’s not enough demand or the competition from the private sector is more efficient.
If you want to support delivery drivers you make laws regulating their job. If you want to support restaurants you give them subsidies or change the laws surrounding them.
Capitalism is good at making efficient use of resources. However it has many failures. The purpose of governments is to fix those failures (for example the exploitation of workers, and monopolies).
If you just make a government-backed company (that doesn’t need a profit to keep going) compete with private companies that need a profit, it must be because the service benefits the whole population. Examples: healthcare, education, communication, water.
Not that not all necessary services need to be provided by profitless government corporations. For example, food and electricity is also needed by 100% of the population but they are also resource-intensive. Therefore they’re usually ran by private companies with heavy regulations/subsidies.
The normal rules of capitalism don’t apply to the internet because data costs nothing to replicate and is infinitely reproducible. Outside of server costs which could be paid by a nominal surcharge, there is no difference between a delivery app that serves 100 people and one that serves 100 million people.
I think it is quite clear that an array of delivery apps, each with their own separate rules and regulations for drivers and each with various subscriptions and fees for users, only adds complication and cost to food delivery. One singular app with one singular pool of delivery drivers is in every way more efficient than what we have now (with the exception of extracting fees from consumers).