I used to use a US parcel forwarding service to shop online and have things forwarded to me in Canada. One of the services they offered was first shipping the US origin package to their warehouse in China (presumably via some kind of discounted or chartered freight service) then forwarding it on from there to the destination country via China Post. This could actually be cheaper than mailing something directly from the US to, say, Switzerland due to the low UPU rates out of China.
US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty
51–60 of 380 posts
Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
They should pay the cost of shipping their parts from China to the US without a subsidy from the US taxpayer.
Of course you realize that this change will likely disproportionately affect the poor and middle-class (who will see a sharp rise in shipping costs) as well as smaller businesses who rely on thin margins to survive. The cost of $300 million per year as quoted in the article seems like peanuts compared to some of the other actions this administration has burdened tax payers with.
If you want to help poor people, subsidizing imports from China is a stupid way of going about it.
Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
Globalization is about an even playing field, not one-sided concessions and subsidies
The idea of free trade/globalization is everyone benefiting from the efficiency of each place doing the work it can do most efficiently. Iowa corn and Swiss fine machinery and Arab oil and all sorts of things where one place can do something better and cheaper because of the nature of the place. Poverty (cheap labor) and treaties (cheap postage) shouldn't be the drivers of this efficiency because they aren't caused b…
But the issue here is not the differential in efficiencies.
It's China receiving subsidies from the US because it was considered a developing country in 1969. It's not anymore, it's a global superpower now, it can pay its own postage.
Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty
#54The headline made it sound sort of bad, but reading this and the WSJ article, it makes you wonder why it wasn’t done sooner.
Because it will make some goods much more expensive for everyone in the US. This can have unintended consequences.
Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty
#55"Under the treaty, a UN body sets lower international rates for packages from certain countries, a move originally designed to support poorer nations."
i presume this is code for making it easier for rich players to exploit cheap labour to make alot more money no matter the consequence for local manufacturing and sovreign security.
Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty
#56A friend helped the Wall Street Journal expose the damage this treaty was doing to his small business in the United States as it tried to fend off counterfeiters. https://www.wsj.com/articles/this-subsidy-for-china-is-dumb-... Seems like a win for American innovation if you care about that thing. Seems like China is going to get hurt by this change which is bad for globalization if you are into that thing.
Globalization is about an even playing field, not one-sided concessions and subsidies
Square that idea with the differences in national labor law for us, please?
Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty
#57if China loses its status as a developing country, all that's likely to happen is the items will end up being shipped from a neighbouring country that still has the status.
When you buy items from AliExpress often they have the option of being sent by Singapore Post. I'm not exactly sure how that works (Singapore isn't that close to China), but although the item comes from China, to the postal service it doesn't.
Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
They should pay the cost of shipping their parts from China to the US without a subsidy from the US taxpayer.
Of course you realize that this change will likely disproportionately affect the poor and middle-class (who will see a sharp rise in shipping costs) as well as smaller businesses who rely on thin margins to survive. The cost of $300 million per year as quoted in the article seems like peanuts compared to some of the other actions this administration has burdened tax payers with.
Most actions disproportionately affect the poor and middle class--that doesn't mean we shouldn't take them. Although it doesn't always work out in practice, ideally, other wealth redistribution policies should blunt the impact of said actions. That said, $300m is not very much, so it seems largely like a symbolic gesture.
Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty
#59This is absolutely a good idea. Whoever thought it would be advantageous for packages from China to cost less to ship than equivalent packages within the USA, is beyond me. I hope there are positive economic and environmental results from this move. What will be the unintended consequences I wonder?
It may still cost less. At least shipping a big thick book form Germany to the US was cheaper than shipping the same book within the US.
Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty
#60Say goodbye to AliExpress in the US. This will more or less kill the business model that AliExpress relies on in the US for most cheap products.
Amazon fought state sales tax until the writing was on the wall, then Amazon caved and we got overnight shipping instead.
I wouldn't be surprised if something similar happens. In Europe hobbyking, banggood et al opened European warehouses once VAT enforcement became a problem.
The big chinese retailers will start competing with Amazon, which is somewhat ironic since Amazon already acts as the US warehouse for many Chinese products. Good riddance to dropshippers though.