What's one change the federal government should implement quickly to increase revenue and also end a needless subsidy? Increase mail rates for business.

Investors know it's the fall season - a time when students return to school and Americans get back to work. But it's also catalogue season – catalogues that consumers often have a hard time convincing companies to remove them from their lists, despite not having considered a purchase from them in eons.

The United States Postal Service has been heavily promoting it's flat rate deliveries based on the the size of the box instead of the weight in an attempt to retrieve some of the business that it has lost to Federal Express Corp (NYSE: FDX) and United Parcel Service.(NYSE: UPS) over the years.

The increasing use of the internet has reduced snail-mail traffic, hurting USPS revenue, while the internet has increased the traffic of package delivery services as sites like Amazon.com (NASDAQ: AMZN) and eBay (NASDAQ: EBAY) continue to expand their businesses and new enterprises and existing traditional companies expand their web presence.

FedEx (NYSE: FDX) is going to raise the rates on many of its services in January of next year. UPS (NYSE: UPS) is planning the same thing. The price increase from FedEx will be close to 7% .

According to The Wall Street Journal, "The increases come as shipping companies benefit from slumping fuel costs but are hampered by falling demand."

The move is a very big risk. During a recession, businesses and consumers will find almost any way they can to cut corners. FedEx still has formidable competition from the United State Post Office, which offers its own ground and overnight products.

FedEx is faced with the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" puzzle that most companies in an economic downturn are scrambling to solve. It needs to keep its revenue as high a level as possible. At the same time, it risks losing customers by making clients pay more than they ca afford.

The U.S. Postal System has lost much of its relevance as people move away from sending letters and documents through the mail in favor of electronic transfers and communications. FedEx might just help the USPS pick up some customers, if the old government-supported agency keeps its rates down.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 24/7 Wall St.

This post is part of our Battle of the Brands feature. Let us know which brand you prefer, and check out other Battle of the Brands posts.

When you need to ship a package, which company first comes to mind? According to last year's Battle of the Brands non-scientific poll, an overwhelming majority said they favored United Parcel Service Inc. (NYSE: UPS) over FedEx Corp. (NYSE: FDX). Higher fuel surcharges, a weak economy, reduced domestic package volume, and a recent push from the U.S. Postal Service have impacted both of these international shipping companies in the past year, but Americans still want the same quality service at a discount price.

Let's take a look at a few changes since last year:

The US Postal Service Tries To Gain Ground

The largest player in the U.S. overnight package delivery business is attempting to increase its market share in the fast-delivery business next month. USPS is barely holding on to its 32% market share in the business, as FedEx and UPS continue to push the envelope at 31% and 25% market share, respectively. For the first time, shippers using Express Mail, Priority Mail, and several other parcel services will be able to get lower rates for large- and medium-volume contracts, according to the agency. Will UPS and FedEx need to cut their prices further to compete with the USPS?

In a record-setting one-day stamp auction that raised sales of $9.1 million, billionaire bond fund manager Bill Gross unloaded a series of early British stamps featuring a young Queen Victoria. The proceeds raised were donated as one sum to Doctors Without Borders; it was the medical organization's largest donation ever received in its 36-year history.

The top lot auctioned Monday morning included two items. The first was described as "the largest surviving mint Penny Black multiple still in private hands," consisting of 18 stamps, coupled with a strip of six stamps that were separated from the larger bunch. The two pieces together were ultimately sold for $1 million to an unnamed bidder. Attending the auction were bidders from the U.S., Canada, the U.K., France, Switzerland, Belgium, China, and Italy.

Gross said he began collecting the stamps in question around 2000, spending an estimated $2.5 million on them. While today's auction benefited a charitable cause, it also helped Gross gauge the market for collectible stamps. Mr. Gross is one of the largest U.S. collectors and estimates having spent between $50 million and $100 million on his collection (that's kind of a wide range, but who am I to quibble?).

The US Postal Service's new "Forever Stamp" is the hottest thing since those 1918 "Inverted Jenny," and the USPS says that it has printed a whopping 4 billion of the always-good stamps; that's enough for everyone in the country to mail 15 first-class standard-size envelopes. And they'll print more, a USPS spokesperson insists, as much as anyone could want.

But is it worthwhile to invest your money in these financial instruments of the smallest? While the new stamps certainly put a fresh spin on "stamp collecting," no one has yet come up with an analysis that would indicate the forever stamp makes financial sense.

Think of it as purchasing futures on your mail. Certainly, it's a good bet that stamp prices will continue to rise. However, in order for it to make sense to purchase 41 cent stamps in bulk? You'd also have to assume that stamp costs were increasing at a greater rate than inflation -- and not just that, but greater than inflation plus the standard return on a CD or other "safe" investment vehicle; a long shot indeed.

Unless you just have a very, very small amount of money to invest -- say, $8.20, or $16.40 -- I think we can agree that Forever Stamps really don't make sense. But if you're the sort who only goes to the post office under great duress, but sends out a lot of mail, buying Forever Stamps will save you a trip for additional postage when the inevitable next price increase goes into effect (paying back untold dividends in time, travel expense, and the psychic damage of standing in line).

Hate to visit the post office? Forever Stamps are for you. For the rest of us, let's stick with money market accounts.

Here I am in my early 30s, already complaining about how inexpensive things used to be. While my grandparents would tell me about their 10-cent movie dates or $10,000 homes, I recall the 22-cent stamp fairly vividly (apparently, when I was born, my birth announcements could have been sent for a dime a pop). In my memory, I've seen the price of sending first-class correspondence rise from under a quarter to, as of May 14, 41 cents. In fact, rates have been hiked 13 times in 32 years.

But folks wanting to plan ahead can stock up on the "forever first-class stamp," unveiled this morning at the National Postal Forum. The stamp, featuring an image of the Liberty Bell, will go on sale April 12 for 41 cents but will feature the word "forever" instead of a price. The plan is for this stamp to remain valid into perpetuity, even as postal rates inevitably climb. Introducing the new postage, Postmaster General John E. Potter quipped, "Who said nothing lasts forever?"

The U.S. Postal Service is looking to increase the cost of a first-class stamp by two pennies, to 41 cents. According to BusinessWeek, it would also like sell a Forever stamp, one that will be good for first-class postage in perpetuity, regardless of price increases.

Being a cheapskate, I wondered how investing in Forever stamps would stack up against the stock market. The USPS proposes selling it at the same price as the new first class stamp.

First, I went to the Inflation Calculator to see how the postage stamp has tracked against the value of our money. I did some digging, and found that the first stamp, issued on March 3, 1863, sold for 03 cents. It reached a dime in 1974, 20 cents in 1981, and 30 cents (actually, 32 cents) in 1995. Happily, I found that the original 03 cent stamp should cost 58 cents today, so we're getting a bargain. Even 1985's 22 cent stamp should cost 41 cents today.

Next, I looked at how the value of a Forever stamp would have fared if I had been able to buy one in 1997. At that time, the stamp would have cost 32 cents. If I held it until the 41cent rate takes effect, I could realize a measly 28% profit (before taxes) over the ten-year span.

My conclusion? Stamps may be a better place for my money than penny stocks or the lottery, but they can't lick the good old stock market.