Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bad for the environment as well for trans-pacific shipping to be cheaper
I've even fantasized about a tax for the movement of goods no matter how they're moved or how carbon neutral the method.
For what purpose?
No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers
61–70 of 508 posts
Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers
#62Will this even matter when Chinese Alibaba/Aliexpress sellers recently started sending their items to Singapore to avoid tariffs and shipping restrictions?
Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers
#63If it goes into effect September 31st then it’s never going into effect.
Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bad for the environment as well for trans-pacific shipping to be cheaper
Aren't ocean vessels one of the most efficient forms of transportation in existence?
In terms of dollars per unit weight moved, yes. They are not only moving massive amounts of cargo with low drag, they're also relatively lightweight compared to the product being moved. Also, there's no maintenance cost to keeping a flat path across the Pacific like there is in keeping roads free of potholes.
In terms of environmental damage, not at all. Container ships burn some of the nastiest, most sulphrous and damaging forms of crude oil in existence, with little to no emissions controls.
I think rail transport is best, but I could be wrong.
Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers
#65What would be the concession from the Chinese? Or do they up the ante and impose more tariffs on incoming U.S. goods? Is this something that the Hacker News community actually supports Trump on? More curious than anything - you just don't see a lot of support for any of his initiatives here. ? Why all the downvotes?
I support this, and I'm a rabid leftist. Things should cost what they cost. The only time government should interfere with pricing is to force companies to price in externalities.
"I'm a rabid leftist". I appreciate your candor, but if you think "things should cost what they cost", then you're not nearly as rabid as many of the rabid leftists that I've encountered.
Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh? I'm not sure what this has to do with taxes or government spending. The USPS doesn't get tax money; it's financed by its customers, like any other business, it just happens to be wholly owned by the federal government. Postal rates are high because they're forced by the UPU agreement to deliver Chinese mail for almost nothing, so they pass the costs on to US customers.
What is the UPU and how'd they get this power?
Universal Postal Union: http://www.upu.int/en.html
"With its 192 member countries, the UPU is the primary forum for cooperation between postal sector players. It helps to ensure a truly universal network of up-to-date products and services."
Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers
#67Anybody else notice that they said "September 31st"?
Probably, the person writing that piece actually got official notification that the termination would occur on September 30 or the end of September, and miswrote, though that kind of error in an official notice is not unheard of.
Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers
#68This actually sounds like a good thing. It costs Chinese shippers almost nothing to send stuff directly from China, while it costs me quite a lot to send stuff within the US, largely because I'm subsidizing all the Chinese shippers. Moreover, for me to send any parcel (even very small ones, like 2 oz.) outside the US costs a small fortune these days, again because I'm subsidizing the Chinese shippers.
> Moreover, for me to send any parcel (even very small ones, like 2 oz.) outside the US costs a small fortune these days, again because I'm subsidizing the Chinese shippers.
International shipping was expensive before China flooded the market b2c.
If you sent a pkg to China, the US would only have to drop it off in China, the last mile delivery cost is mostly up to China. The actual air freight cost to USPS is about $5/kg.
I think what’s really happening is that USPS (and Canada Post!) are using international shipping as a profit centre because there’s little competition and they need to subsidize legislated activities (6x/week door-to-door service for 53c or whatever it is).
Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
I support this, and I'm a rabid leftist. Things should cost what they cost. The only time government should interfere with pricing is to force companies to price in externalities.
That does not sound like a rabid leftist? - You don't want rent control? - I guess whatever non-Pigouvian portion of tax/subsidy is also out of bounds?
Not every person fits into a political bucket. Please do not bait politics here.
Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers
#70This is one way to mitigate knock off products from China. If the shipping costs come up to the norm, they won't always (if ever) be the cheapest product so the real one will win out more often. Various products will have different tipping points where it just doesn't make sense to ship and/or they aren't getting enough sales to justify it. Personally, I like it and it seems like everyone wins.. except people who und…
Nonsense, not everything from China is a knockoff and there are a lot of genuine non-copied products. How weird to think their economy is just "inferior knockoffs".
Resources aren't copied and value-added products like steel aren't either although techiques to produce or grow may be.
Please cite some examples of geniune products. China is known for making existing products cheaper. The techology area is mostly copy-paste.