> They are forced to deliver to unprofitable routes and have prices set to inflation due to government policies. Private delivery services like Amazon and Fedex are generally profitable and don't have these issues.

I, for one, think it's a good thing that people are entitled to their mail regardless of the profitability of their mail route. That's the point of a public service.

A cynic would say Congress's actions, loading the USPS with costs while denying it control over prices, is so that people ask "Why is a government alternative better?"

Is it your opinion that some people simply shouldn’t get their mail, or that people who live in rural areas should pay exponentially more to get their mail delivered? Why is either of those things desirable?

USPS is not a business, and it’s a fundamental mistake to pretend it is, solely for the sake of slandering it.

None of the competitors offer a similar service to USPS.

Among other core competencies, USPS has nationwide daily coverage of the entire United States and centuries(?) of experience interoperating the the respective mail services of every country in the world and then some.

Amazon wont even take MY package one town over.

Welcome to the world of privatising public services. This has been a scheme of free market politicians for years; call public services too expensive, strip them of funding and hamper them in other ways, then call out how they are not delivering on their promise. Then sell the off at bargain prices, often with additional government guarantees on revenue. After privatisation services don't improve and cost never go down, but somehow the public is better off?

Wait until you hear how much money the US military has lost.