You didn't dispense with anything. In fact, you ranted around the main points.I did some brief Googling, and have found nearly no support for leaving the current system in place. An exception is this piece in the Hill whose headline promised to explain “Why the Universal Postal Union benefits the US”. The arguments are predictably weak.
- First off is that it keeps prices down (we dispensed with this earlier)
This move will push up the costs of imports, and when people are spending more of their income on the same things that's not positive. In the long run, it may be a better result for the country - maybe - but in the short and medium terms, no, obviously. It's not just these post-shipped items that will go up in cost (by a lot), it's everything else too until there's a significant increase in capacity to meet the demand levels after the post-shipped products are transitioned to ocean freight. Remember, ocean freight shipping includes everything from hauling/handling at export to the longer clearance at CPB, CLC costs, the costs of port backups, the works. Capacity issues like, say, a trucker shortage like we have, are bottlenecks that increase costs. These costs will be borne by everyone who moves cargo, not just the producers of products currently shipping by post. Importers/exporters will eat some of the cost in the form of a lower margin, but ultimately this cost increase will be passed onto the consumer.
Now, you can argue that there's a benefit to the US pocketbook (subsidy elimination + sales tax capture > decline in spending on services as a result of decreased purchasing power), you can argue that this move is an important minor play in the global strategic competition with China, and you can even possibly argue that the US economy over the longer term will be better off if we use higher prices on imports to throw business to Mexico, or bring it back here, or increase automation. But there's absolutely nobody with any brains who would say that making consumers pay more for products is positive from an economic perspective in itself, or that it will have no effect. It may be good that people consume fewer products from an ecological perspective, but slicing into purchasing power is not good, and taking an action certain to do that must be balanced by a nuanced discussion of the true value/cost of that mail subsidy.
As I said, this is the nuance we need when we're evaluating decisions like this, not just assuming that the other side is operating in bad faith or is foolish, and spouting your points off more loudly than anyone else in the room. Like, you're dead wrong on this argument, but not because the articles you read gave you bad information. Yeah, there's bad information there, but you're wrong on this because the argument I'm making is about how uninformed people (like yourself) feel free to shameless voice their opinions as if they're obviously correct because those opinions are politically formed, instead of seeking to inform yourself, weigh the pros and cons, and come to a position dialectically. The background on the cost was just prefatory.