141–150 of 170 posts
And the fun thing is that USPS is probably often funded by government debt too. The US economy has been running a trade deficit since the 1980s at least and we went off the gold standard in 1971.
> The Postal Service receives NO tax dollars for operating expenses and relies on the sale of postage, products and services to fund its operations. https://about.usps.com/who-we-are/postal-facts/top-10-things...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I buy components from china it is often the case that the price plus shipping is less than the shipping alone from a US supplier.
Components are actually one of the three categories of things I order from China. The other two being cheap trinkets and casual clothes. China-ordered components come from the same factories anyway, trinkets are binary (they either work or don't, not much space for quality difference), and regular clothes are crappy throwaway items regardless of where you buy them. Anything else I consider too risky. In particular, I…
For stuff like resistors, capacitors, some microcontrollers, power supplies, etc., the Chinese sellers are pretty reliable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not a great rebuttal, because most of us who would be opposed to the ownership of things created under Chinese prison labor would also be opposed to the ownership of things under American prison labor. (I'd be fine with the American prison labor if they were paid a fair, living wage).
Some would argue that in prison, room and board is provided, so the 30¢/hr is a "living wage". I don't agree, because there's nothing consensual about the situation...
I took a quick look at what people are sending their SOs in prison to spend at the commissary to buy things like deodorant and snacks (http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-682271....). The numbers ranged from lower ($40) to several hundred a month. Assuming $100, they'd have to work over 11 hour days.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> "trust pure capitalism to properly prioritize the values of the American people" But who decides the values of the American people then? Should the govt's approach be "We know this product was made by kids, so it is banned", or "We are educating you that this product involved child labor, it is upto you to use your values now"? I think the second approach will cause trivial change, at best.
If so, wouldn't the approach be correctly demonstrating that these values are only trivially important? Vegans and various religious people make different purchasing decisions because of values they actually find important enough to change their lifestyles for.
Wait a minute... This argument doesn't make any sense. The post office is delivering to a US citizen that supports said postal services through paying taxes. If they choose to purchase from China, Amazon, or eBay that is their choice.
Maybe people who are not citizens and have not paid any taxes benefit from this but I suspect those are extreme edge cases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the core of the argument is that this isn't pure capitalist economics; the government is essentially subsidizing China's ability to compete in America. It'd be one thing if China could make it and ship it for legitimately cheaper, but abusing a treaty loophole in USPS regulations isn't the same. That's an unfair advantage. There's also a second argument at play: If China can make a product for $10 cheaper, legiti…
As to your second argument, I'm still not sure why it is legal to buy or own materials in the US created by human rights abuse. Let's take a case of a Chinese good produced by political slaves in prison. By buying or owning that good, a person is financially supporting the abuse that went into creating that good. Same applies for something that is produced for cheaper due to an ability to pollute in ways that aren't…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the core of the argument is that this isn't pure capitalist economics; the government is essentially subsidizing China's ability to compete in America. It'd be one thing if China could make it and ship it for legitimately cheaper, but abusing a treaty loophole in USPS regulations isn't the same. That's an unfair advantage. There's also a second argument at play: If China can make a product for $10 cheaper, legiti…
The loophole isn't unidirectional. It can make the China Post deliver many letters to small villages in China. The problem is that no one on those villages are interested in paying some small price to receive a thing from America.
Australia Post has long had the same problem with shipments from the US. They've recently opened a warehouse in Oregon, where they'll receive domestic US shipments, and deliver to you in Australia for a separate fee. https://shopmate.auspost.com.au
The Irish Post Office is now offering something similar for items bought in the Uk/USA You get a 'fake' Address in these countries and then all of the items are shipped together to ireland before being delivered. https://addresspal.anpost.ie/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Countries are currently classified by their level of development, meaning those in the most developed groups pay contributions into the Quality of Service Fund on top of terminal dues to those in the less developed group. This mark up goes toward development projects in the recipient country. Does this mean "less developed" China will end up being subsidized even more?
The change to the regime for bulky letters and parcels is not the same as the group mergers. I was referring mostly to the former, which will increase the dues for bulky letters and small parcels to a higher per-kg-rate than the current rate that applies to all mail. The latter change merges some groups but will, to my understanding, not affect China. Groups 1.2 and 2 (countries which joined the terminal dues target…
This is another example of WaPo's overly sensational piece. To be fair, USPS loses BILLIONS on retirement funding, reduced mailing due to the dominance of Internet age with emails and other competitions. [1] $79 million in fiscal year 2013 loss due to this type of shipments is a drop in the bucket comparing to the mishaps in operations and reduced volumes at $3B/quarter in 2011. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uni…
There was some speculation at the time that this was a regulatory attempt to "tie their hands" on investments to address the online shopping market, which has more than offset the decline in carriage due to email. For example, during the 10 year period covered by the pre-funding obligation, UPS managed to increase revenues on domestic shipping by ~45%. [1]
Excluding these mandatory payments, the USPS is actually slightly profitable, to the tune of (conservatively) $92M as of 2015 [2]. In this context, a $79M loss is a major portion of their annual profits, although still a drop in the bucket compared to their gross revenue.
[0]: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr6407/text
[1]: http://www.investors.ups.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=62900&p=irol-re...
[2]: https://about.usps.com/who-we-are/financials/annual-reports/...