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

No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

sellercentral.amazon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 508 posts

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#111

Post by scarejunba »

jplayer01 wrote: post #24
aantix wrote: post #11

What 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?

> What would be the concession from the Chinese? What concession? It's a clear market distortion that shipping rates across such distances are so ridiculously low. I'm not sure why anybody is supporting them. This isn't about Trump or not Trump, and always putting these issues in these terms is incredibly distracting from what's actually important. (And I say this as somebody who absolutely despises Trump.)

We don't know that they're below cost. Maybe the market distortion is that internal mail is so expensive.

EDIT: whoops, untrue as below. Disregard this.

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#112

Post by ComputerGuru »

ikeboy wrote: post #13
toomuchtodo wrote: post #7

Great planet money episode on the topic: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/08/01/634737852/epis...

>FOUNTAIN: Anna sent us a chart that estimates how much less. And it says, if you or I wanted to send a three-quarter-pound package somewhere in the U.S., the U.S. Postal Service would charge around $4.76 for the last leg of the journey. >MALONE: Yeah, the so-called final mile. However, if that same package came in from China, the USPS would only charge China Post $1.39. That means the USPS charges you and me roughly…

UPU rates do include tracking. All ePacket deliveries from China include last mile (port-to-door) tracking.

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#114

Post by orthecreedence »

daveslash wrote: post #65
orthecreedence wrote: post #15

Earlier 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.

"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.

Oh, no. Don't get me wrong: I'm a communist. But in the current system, I would rather costs not be subsidized. In fact, I think costs should incorporate much more than the pricing system currently allows (pollution, recyclability, etc).

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#115

Post by kazinator »

scoobyyabbadoo wrote: post #100
daveslash wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

I think what is left and right have been evolving since the 60s. Leftism is being fought over now between anarcho-capitalists vs labor while the right is being fought over between big business vs nationalists.

What is left and right has been misunderstood in evolving ways since the 60's anti-intellectualism set in.

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#118

Post by mieseratte »

dmix wrote: post #48

I almost never order stuff from China here in Canada because its very expensive to ship anything and inconsistently takes forever or semi-forever. I was wondering how Wish.com made money...

> and inconsistently takes forever or semi-forever.

As a teenager I ordered a custom mousepad from a website, apparently it was ultimately sourced from China. Never did show up, but it was something like $5 so I never bothered looking into it, chalked it up to a lesson learned.

About four years later I'm visiting home, and in my mail pile sits a random Chinese package. Lo and behold my mousepad finally arrived!

I figure my $5 went towards building the actual factory.

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#119

Post by Zigurd »

MrMorden wrote: post #52
Zigurd wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The resolution should be restoration of reciprocity, like having China Post insist on commercial shippers having customs clearance arranged. Other trade war elements like getting out of TPP and bellicosity in general have cost vastly more than the value of stopping drop-shipping Chinese eBay sellers, which is negligible in US China trade.

The US withdrawing from TPP directly resulted in a vastly-improved treaty. The problem is that the US didn't sign up to the new version.

That's not what I have seen in any description of TPP. It appears that withdrawing from it is pure vandalism of US interests that we now see in the trade war with China, happening outside the framework of TPP.

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#120

Post by keiferski »

_jgdh wrote: post #97
keiferski wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The shipping industry is responsible for a significant proportion of the global climate change problem. More than three percent of global carbon dioxide emissions can be attributed to ocean-going ships. This is an amount comparable to major carbon-emitting countries -- and the industry continues to grow rapidly. In fact, if global shipping were a country, it would be the sixth largest producer of greenhouse gas emiss…

Not really a helpful or fair comparison. Global shipping emits more carbon dioxide than India, but that's literally apples to oranges. It might be easier for the shipping industry to reduce it's emissions, or it might be easier for India. The benefit(s) of India polluting is spread across 1.3 billion people. The beneficiaries of polluting by the shipping industry is presumably the whole world, though the benefits are…

> Or make the case that we don't need to ship if we can produce locally instead.

My impression was that this was the argument being made. Shipping emissions could be cut dramatically if more things were made close to their end destination.

Post reply on HN