Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 380 posts

Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

#371

Post by nkurz »

kbenson wrote: post #263
nkurz wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EBay from China is now bye bye. Why would this change the be end of direct shipping from China? Currently (rounded off numbers) the cost of shipping a 2 lb (1 kg) package within the US is about $7, and the cost of shipping such a package from China to a US address is about $2. The obvious solution would be that the Chinese shipment ends up costing $9 (current Chinese rate of $2 to the US border, plus $7 standard US s…

Where are you getting those numbers from? My understanding is that there's a nominal fee for last-mile delivery the USPS charges mail from other countries, which is all (or the vast majority) that's being charged for Chinese shipments, as the Chinese side is subsidized completely (or almost so) for outgoing mail. I think the $2 you are quoting might be the treaty fee for delivering mail from other countries, which is…

Where are you getting those numbers from?

The US rates are for small flat rate packages and envelopes on USPS.com. I didn't find an exact source for the China-to-US rate, so the $2 was the low end of a small number of articles about shipping rather than an exact quote. I may have misinterpreted, or converted using outdated exchange rates, or missed details about minimum quantities. As you say, there is subsidization involved, but I think this is about right for the amount charged to the shipper.

Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

#372

Post by forapurpose »

malvosenior wrote: post #341
forapurpose wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think we can say that US democracy has not "resulted in an explosion of peace and liberty unlikely anything the world has ever seen". But we have. Name any other period in world history that has seen the same spread of freedom and peace. There is nothing that comes close. > The fewer artificial market constraints the better. The Postal Treaty, and free trade and globalization in general, is a removal of artificia…

> But we have. Name any other period in world history that has seen the same spread of freedom and peace. There is nothing that comes close. I count the middle east and south east Asia as part of the world, and no what we spread there was not freedom and peace, it was/is decades of war and destruction. I think you're referencing the cold war and the lack of direct conflict between major superpowers in the 20th centur…

> I count the middle east and south east Asia as part of the world, and no what we spread there was not freedom and peace, it was/is decades of war and destruction.

I didn't say all the world had freedom and peace, but that it has spread far more than ever before. And it has. Again, name any other era that remotely compares.

> I think you're referencing the cold war

The Cold War has been over since, effectively, 1989, almost 30 years ago. Yet the world is, by some people's measures, more peaceful now than at any time in history. As simple examples, there is almost no international war anywhere. The entire North and South American continents, and Europe east of Ukraine, are at peace.

> It was not caused by democracy

The victors of WWII put mechanisms in place expressly to prevent more wars, including the UN and the EU, institutions designed to apply democracy to international relations. People can always make up reasons, since it's impossible to prove, but the results are what they intended. Further, with the spread of democracy in Europe, for example, the threat of war - which tore apart Europe for centuries before democracy became almost universal there post-WWII, war between European powers is now unthinkable. The exception is the sole non-democratic power, Russia.

Looking around the world, democracies don't tend to start wars or invade their neighbors - there is no chance of war between the U.S., Canada, European countries, Japan, etc. etc. All democracies. In East Asia, almost all threats of war are between the non-democratic power, China, and others. Japan and S. Korea, for example, have no interest in it and work out their issues peacefully.

Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

#373

Post by forapurpose »

jchb wrote: post #359
forapurpose wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Large institutions, and interactions between large institutions, use complex rules to manage their very many and varied activities, often called 'bureaucracy'. Nobody has found an alternative; you can't name any sizeable institution that lacks it. We're talking about the rules governing all mail sent between all countries in the world. 200 pages seems very small to me. And what better option do we have? If there's a…

What you are missing is this institution does not have direct accountability to neither voters nor tax payers. But rather than focusing on its core mission, it seems to have a life of its own (just like some other UN organisations). Still it expects to continue get funded no matter what. US and other western governments have being reviewing the UPU for years, for the distortion these rules have been causing since the…

I'm still waiting to hear about a better option ... what will yield better outcomes?

> What you are missing is this institution does not have direct accountability to neither voters nor tax payers.

I'm not sure what this means, though it's often repeated.

In most democracies, only one person who does anything (legislatures don't act, they make rules) that is directly responsible is the chief executive, e.g., the President in the United States. 99.9999% of what is done is by people not directly responsible to voters, which includes every park ranger, bank regulator, soldier, janitor, cabinet official, medicare payment processor, security guard, CIA agent, NIH researcher, etc etc etc.

Furthermore, every international agreement is made by the executives, and carried out by someone - Trump isn't going to be personally delivering the mail to Mali (or to Minnesota) no matter what happens, so inevitably it's done by an institution that "does not have direct accountability to neither voters nor tax payers".

How do you propose we handle international mail with people directly accountable to voters?

> why is the Universal Postal Union concerned with income redistribution

It's not redistribution, it's paying our share as the richest countries in the world. Is it income redistribution when Bezos pays more taxes than the person who served you your coffee? The principle is equal sacrifice. If Bezos and the waiter paid the exact same taxes, it would be absurd. Bezos and the rich countries can afford much more. We'd have to be amazing doctrinaire or miserly to demand that poor people pay as much as we do. $300 million issues should not reach the President's desk in the U.S. - it's laughable. There are many corporations that could write off that amount without thinking twice.

Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

#374

Post by kbenson »

nkurz wrote: post #371
kbenson wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are you getting those numbers from? My understanding is that there's a nominal fee for last-mile delivery the USPS charges mail from other countries, which is all (or the vast majority) that's being charged for Chinese shipments, as the Chinese side is subsidized completely (or almost so) for outgoing mail. I think the $2 you are quoting might be the treaty fee for delivering mail from other countries, which is…

Where are you getting those numbers from? The US rates are for small flat rate packages and envelopes on USPS.com. I didn't find an exact source for the China-to-US rate, so the $2 was the low end of a small number of articles about shipping rather than an exact quote. I may have misinterpreted, or converted using outdated exchange rates, or missed details about minimum quantities. As you say, there is subsidization…

> I didn't find an exact source for the China-to-US rate, so the $2 was the low end of a small number of articles about shipping rather than an exact quote.

Oh, I'm not questioning your accuracy, I was just wondering the source, since I wasn't finding anything easily. :)

I don't think this is the end of direct shipping from China, but it is a large blow to that random super cheap Chinese knock-offs market. The Planet Money episode I linked in a sibling comment covers the story of an American (unspillable) mug maker that noticed knock-offs selling super cheap from China. He was able to order one with free shipping for $5.59, free shipping from China. He asked his shipping department how much it would cost to mail the mug across the street, and was told $6.30, just for shipping. I think that illustrates the distortion this has on the market very clearly, where something can be manufactured in China and shipped to a US home cheaper than a US manufacturer can just ship the item.

I'm sure there are plenty of items with a higher base cost where Chinese manufacturers will be able to make up that shipping extra in a lower item cost, but given how large the market of very cheap directly shipped items is, I think this will have a very large effect, especially since I think there's a lot more consumer confidence ordering very cheap things from China than somewhat expensive things. I don't care too much if my $10 item from China is crap, or unsuitable for it's intended use, or just fake, but I might really care if it's a $50 item, so I might choose a North American company to order from.

Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

#375

Post by jchb »

forapurpose wrote: post #373
jchb wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you are missing is this institution does not have direct accountability to neither voters nor tax payers. But rather than focusing on its core mission, it seems to have a life of its own (just like some other UN organisations). Still it expects to continue get funded no matter what. US and other western governments have being reviewing the UPU for years, for the distortion these rules have been causing since the…

I'm still waiting to hear about a better option ... what will yield better outcomes? > What you are missing is this institution does not have direct accountability to neither voters nor tax payers. I'm not sure what this means, though it's often repeated. In most democracies, only one person who does anything (legislatures don't act, they make rules) that is directly responsible is the chief executive, e.g., the Pres…

> Is it income redistribution when Bezos pays more taxes than the person who served you your coffee

Yes, it is, taxation is a mean of income redistribution!

But I find your example flawed for the purpose of this discussion. More apt would be to say that the coffee clerk (through his taxes) have to help reimburse the Chinese post office when Bezos orders a package from Aliexpress.

But note, I didn’t say income redistribution is always bad! You seem to assume that you are arguing with some tea-party republican with a MAGA cap. But I am not, not even american.

But income distribution through UPU is incredible opaque. If we are going to pay foreign aid, I think we tax payers at a minimum deserve to know exactly how much we are paying and to whom!

>How do you propose we handle international mail with people directly accountable to voters?

I don’t suggest that. What I am saying is that they since they are not directly accountable to the tax payers, the people that are (eg US president) have to hold them accountable. Also they better stick to their scope or they will lose public support.

I doubt the US will leave UPU in the end, but this will be a huge wake up call for the other member countries.

> miserly to demand that poor people pay as much as we do

But no one is upset with US or France paying more than Zimbabwe. They are upset mostly with Chinas classification, which doesn’t match its new economic powers.

Whether US president should be involved in a $300 million decision I don’t know, but that is still is a lot of money, and the tax payers deserve that every dollar of their money is spent judiciously. A corporation writing that off is not an apt comparison because being a shareholder is a voluntarily taken risk position. You can’t opt out of paying tax.

Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

#376

Post by pluma »

eiaoa wrote: post #278
pluma wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either the Brexit example is a simple mistake or you're confused about the mechanics behind it, so I'll elaborate to avoid people thinking it's a sound analogy: The Brexit referendum was non-binding, so at that point nothing legally relevant had happened yet. The UK government then decided to honour the will demonstrated by the 37.5% of the population that cast a vote in favour of leaving the EU (51.9% of the result…

> The UK government then decided to honour the will demonstrated by the 37.5% of the population that cast a vote in favour of leaving the EU (51.9% of the result at a 72.2% turnout). That's how elections work. Your logic only serves to allows one to delegitimize any non-landslide election by selectively setting unreasonably high standards. It's probably more legitimate to say that 27.8% of the electorate indicated th…

Sure, that's a cheap shot but I thought it's worth pointing out as an aside.

Firstly 51.9% is a ridiculously low margin to begin with, especially if you consider that Northern Ireland and Scotland had a majority in the opposite direction.

Secondly the referendum was intended to be non-binding, which means people were more likely to vent their frustration by voting whichever way upsets the status quo.

Lastly even those who wanted out of the EU had formed their opinion based on decades of "us vs them" rhetoric by British MPs who regularly used the EU as a scapegoat and distraction (not to mention the outright lies used in the actual Leave campaign).

Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

#377

Post by niij »

morpheuskafka wrote: post #367
niij wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US post office is 100% self funded. They get exactly $0 from taxes.

Not so fast. You're right that the general operations of the USPS are no longer directly appropriated by Congress. However, the US government and its citizens do give the USPS significant economic benefits, including a 100% tax exemption from state and local taxes, and the ability to "pay" federal taxes back to itself[1]. USPS need not comply with local zoning, parking, toll road, etc. laws. According to a 2015 repor…

That's interesting, thanks for the detailed reply.My point was that their operating expenses are covered by fees for postage and not directly paid through taxes. But now I realize that this is more of a grey area than I had though.

Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

#378

Post by complexmango »

colechristensen wrote: post #27
paulsutter wrote: post #7

Earlier 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…

I once believed this as well, via one of my degrees (economics). It turned out to be contradicted by reality.

Ricardo and Adam Smith argued that the consumer surplus gains of free trade for the higher labor market would be greater than the losses sustained in producer surplus in the same market. I.e. that American consumers reap more $$ from imported foreign cars than American workers/business lose.

However, since then its become obvious that the population that loses jobs cares a LOT more than consumers do about their cars being a few $$ cheaper (e.g. Donald Trump won Michigan and Ohio).

In other words - political differences DO matter. Perhaps economics should return to its previous name - Political Economy - in order to actually describe the real world again.

Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

#379

Post by cascom »

ceejayoz wrote: post #192
cascom wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you call losing ~$1B+/qtr self funded, yeah they’re “self funded” https://about.usps.com/who-we-are/financials/financial-condi...

That's not really their fault. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-04-04/congress-... > The law requires the Postal Service, which receives no taxpayer subsidies, to prefund its retirees' health benefits up to the year 2056. This is a $5 billion per year cost; it is a requirement that no other entity, private or public, has to make. If that doesn't meet the definition of insanity, I don't know what does. Wit…

alternatively, it means that all those other institutions are actually loss making when one factors in their pension obligations

Re: US Announces Withdraw From Postal Treaty

#380

Post by morpheuskafka »

niij wrote: post #377
morpheuskafka wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not so fast. You're right that the general operations of the USPS are no longer directly appropriated by Congress. However, the US government and its citizens do give the USPS significant economic benefits, including a 100% tax exemption from state and local taxes, and the ability to "pay" federal taxes back to itself[1]. USPS need not comply with local zoning, parking, toll road, etc. laws. According to a 2015 repor…

That's interesting, thanks for the detailed reply.My point was that their operating expenses are covered by fees for postage and not directly paid through taxes. But now I realize that this is more of a grey area than I had though.

Glad you found it interesting!
Post reply on HN