141–150 of 508 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The actual consequence will be Chinese sellers using US warehouses and drop-shipping from there. Others send over a container with each ordered good and slap a local post’s label on it. Possibly that local post’s label is attached in China and the container just gets dropped off at a USPS DC by the private freight forwarder. It’s already fairly common. Overall, a few more US jobs, and maybe more USPS revenue for what…
Is that a problem? Seems like if they do that then it's US domestic mail, playing by all the same rules (and high rates) as any other domestic mail item. Competing with Chinese shippers would look exactly the same as competing with anyone shipping out of LA/Oakland/Seattle.
Earlier 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?
Athens Greece has a pall of smog over it mostly coming from the ships in the harbor as they sit there spewing columns of thick black smoke into the sky. I don't doubt some of the pollution is from vehicles, but it's pretty noticeable how the particulate smog starts in the harbor and moves inland.
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...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
". . . all USPS international GEPS contracts will be terminated September 31st." Do courts just do the reasonable thing when contracts stipulate deadlines on dates that don't exist?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The USPS has been getting money from taxes to offset the debt they run each year. For many years now they have been in the red. Fortune wrote about it back in 2015[1] and you can read the 2018 financial results[2]. Some tax money goes to the USPS. [1] https://fortune.com/2015/03/27/us-postal-service/ [2] https://about.usps.com/news/national-releases/2018/pr18_093....
That first article is severely stretching the definition of "getting money". Virtually all of the alleged $18B is attributed to the law that gives the USPS jurisdiction over your mailbox. The second just reflects Congress's attempts to deliberately hobble the USPS in 2006 by requiring them to suddenly pre-fund their pension obligations. https://www.uspsoig.gov/blog/be-careful-what-you-assume https://www.bloomberg.com…
Maybe it's a flawed methodology (arguable), but being fiscally responsible about pensions is something that should be encouraged. In California pension liabilities are out of control and at impractical levels, causing all sorts of havoc and manipulation (corruption). https://www.vcstar.com/story/news/2018/12/07/governor-jerry-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The USPS does have a special relationship, but it isn't a one way street. First, it isn't a monopoly -- there are many other shippers competing in the profitable segments of the market. Second, USPS is obligated to service every location in the US, and at government-controlled prices. USPS will deliver, door to door, a letter from Nowhere, MT to Remote, GA for $0.55, even though they take a loss on it. Try to get Fed…
I’ve heard this many times. I also know quite a few places that USPS does not service.
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…
The UPU agreement on terminal dues sets a sliding scale based on the sending country's level of economic development - less developed economies pay less, while more developed economies pay more. The logic behind this is fairly obvious, in helping less-developed economies to fully participate in the international mail system.
The problem for the USPS is that they are obliged to handle large volumes of mail originating in China, but the terminal dues for lightweight items are substantially below their cost of delivery. The handling of these items is effectively cross-subsidised by USPS customers.
The US is demanding that terminal dues should be set at a flat rate based on domestic postal costs, with the possibility of direct subsidies for less developed postal systems. This would partly (though not completely) reduce the competitive advantage for Chinese e-commerce sellers.