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

131–140 of 508 posts

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#131

Post by buck4roo »

magduf wrote: post #12
HNcantBtrustd wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this mean lower government spending? Kind of blows my mind the government gets tax money and private people get the benefits.

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.

It's not "any other business"; it's a shared resource that improves the lives of all citizens. And we WANT it that way. "Any other business" would not offer or employ any of the features we expect from our Post Office (systemwide flat rate parcel & 1st class letter, 6d/wk delivery (for free!), lack of surge/congestion pricing). If you think UPS and FedEx aren't taking profit away from USPS think again.

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#132

Post by williamDafoe »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #64
iNate2000 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

A lot of Chinese ships burn spent USA motor oil (illegal to burn in the USA) on the way home, ergo, free trip home! And the entire smoke plume lands in the USA . .

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#133

Post by PunchTornado »

resters wrote: post #71

Not sure why everyone thinks this is a good thing. If the Chinese government wants to subsidize shipping so that US consumers can buy products for less money, what is the harm? The reason postage is expensive in the US is because there is a legal monopoly on first class mail, and very little competition for premium services (which is why Amazon decided that launching its own shipping carrier would be highly profitabl…

it's not the Chinese gov who subsidizes shipping, it's the US and developed countries who subsidize Chinese shipping.

I think China is no longer a developing country, should be on equal footing with Western countries now.

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#134

Post by reaperducer »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #76
ajnin wrote: post #23

Can someone shed light on the subsidy structure behing the current model, are shipments from China being subsidized by shipments from other countries or is there government money involved ? In any case this kind of subsidy is not necessarily bad for developing countries, and it was probably instrumental in China's phenomenal economic growth, but it is now in the conquering superpower category, it's time it loses this…

I think the issue was in mistaking China for a developing country for so long. It’s different from western countries, but not undeveloped. Its size, population, culture, heritage, and history all play a role in how the ethnocentric West misinterpreted it.

I'm not sure that "mistaking" is the right word.

For years the United States has protested the cheap UPU rates that China gets. But the UPU still classifies it as a "developing" nation.

China is the world's second-largest economy. It doesn't need or deserve the artificially cheap rates anymore. China shouldn't pay less to send packages overseas than countries in Africa.

By leaving the UPU, the United States can set correct prices.

It's one of those situations where China claims to be a developing nation when it suits its needs, and then claims to be a developed nation when it suits its needs.

If you're going to play in the big leagues, you have to play by big league rules.

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#135

Post by [deleted] »

resters wrote: post #71

Not sure why everyone thinks this is a good thing. If the Chinese government wants to subsidize shipping so that US consumers can buy products for less money, what is the harm? The reason postage is expensive in the US is because there is a legal monopoly on first class mail, and very little competition for premium services (which is why Amazon decided that launching its own shipping carrier would be highly profitabl…

[deleted]

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#136

Post by [deleted] »

BurningFrog wrote: post #96
magduf wrote: post #12

Earlier 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.

The USPS gets a monopoly on its gigantic market from the government. That is an enormous government subsidy. It is very much not like any other business.

[deleted]

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#138

Post by literallycancer »

orthecreedence wrote: post #114
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.

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).

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. The aliexpress sellers need the cheaper shipping rates to be able to compete, wouldn't you say?

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#139

Post by freehunter »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #88
jessaustin wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is fine for an end date. Any duration should be specified as half-open, t₀ . This way it's clear that September, even its last day, is in the period and October is not.

Yes, but try codifying that and you won’t get far enough to make that comparison. E.g. mentally or on a computer, ‘Date.Parse(“2019-09-31”)’ is an error ;)

Any properly defined software should take a date that doesn't exist and move it forward or backward to a date that does. Leap years would crash every computer every February if that wasn't taken into account.

Re: No More Cheap Shipping for Chinese Sellers

#140

Post by delfinom »

jrockway wrote: post #126

The impression I get from that thread is that the dream here is now Americans can do what they do best, sit in the middle of transactions and collect rent. Previously, you could go to a Chinese website and have the Chinese factory send you a widget directly to your door. Now that will be too expensive, but hey we have a solution! An American will order a bunch of widgets in bulk, ship them over in a cargo ship, come…

Pretty much. I absolutely fucking hate Amazon now. It's full of white label products. You can tell the seller does no real safety testing of any kind from their broad array of random shit. You can't even trust the kitchen equipment for chance they made the steel with lead or the silicone is mixed with something toxic, etc. Completely unregulated market place of stupid. And this is on top of Amazon's counterfeit problems they half ass enforcement. I'm surprised nobody has died yet from counterfeit or substandard automotive goods of all things.
Post reply on HN