Live data from Hacker News

Temporary suspension of acceptance of mail to the United States

post.japanpost.jp

231–240 of 459 posts

Re: Temporary suspension of acceptance of mail to the United States

#231

There was chatter about this in one of the NYC subreddits over the weekend. Apparently ending the de minimus exemption is closing the grey market for e.g. sunscreen; places that used to sell Japanese sunscreens on American shelves no longer are. There's a frustratingly long list of goods that the US decided to put requirements on in previous generations, and then stopped maintaining. Sunscreen is one; other countries…

The funny thing about MIPS is that it makes the same helmet safer, but it might have been a garbage helmet to begin with.

Throwing away your non-MIPS helmet and replacing it with a MIPS may be a safety-reducing decision, unless you’re buying the exact same model.

Re: Temporary suspension of acceptance of mail to the United States

#232
post #226

Hot take: good The de minimis treatment has been abused beyond original intent. Specifically by China, but you can't fix that without fixing the general case. Fast fashion and other low-value drop air shipping across oceans is ecologically insane: as a planet we literally can't afford to keep doing this. And the US, by virtue of population + relative consumer wealth, is the biggest customer for this. Furthermore, the…

Well this is how Chinese shippers on Amazon were able to sell goods so cheaply; in addition to the U.S. subsidizing Chinese mail costs. This will lead to a more fair and just system in the future. While the halt may seem like a bad thing, the dictation of global commerce means it's really symbolic. They can't withhold mail forever

Re: Temporary suspension of acceptance of mail to the United States

#233
post #203

There was chatter about this in one of the NYC subreddits over the weekend. Apparently ending the de minimus exemption is closing the grey market for e.g. sunscreen; places that used to sell Japanese sunscreens on American shelves no longer are. There's a frustratingly long list of goods that the US decided to put requirements on in previous generations, and then stopped maintaining. Sunscreen is one; other countries…

i appreciate you mentioning MIPS - i had no idea there was a new, better standard, and i'll definitely get one for my next helmet (motorcycle)

MIPS isn’t a standard, but an enhancement (and there is some argument that its benefits are overstated: e.g. you’ll get some beneficial slippage in your helmet if it isn’t as tight as possible, if you have hair, or if the thing you hit is more slippery than asphalt)

See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45018181

Re: Temporary suspension of acceptance of mail to the United States

#234
post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't believe I'm going to look like I'm defending this but here it goes: The market 'offering' the most demand to the global economy right now is America, by far and away, with a distant second of Europe and Middle East. America has chosen to use tariffs in an attempt to 'tax the demand offered' to the global economy in order to stop the localize debt accumulation of that demand, along with other justifications (r…

I'm not talking about trade imbalance. I'm simply saying, tax incidence is predicted by elasticity, and in the long run suppliers have very high elasticity. You can possibly improve trade imbalance with tariffs (though retaliation makes it hard). But it's hard to escape your consumers paying most or all of the costs of those tariffs.

I think we agree if I'm understanding you correctly, yes the Suppliers have more elasticity and must ultimately absorb this.

I'd say the remaining problem left in our analysis is massive inequality in America leading to enormous consumer elasticity in a small ultra-wealth portion. This I can't figure out

Re: Temporary suspension of acceptance of mail to the United States

#235
post #222
post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a few situations where tariffs are beneficial: 1. To preserve strategically important domestic industries (historically: food production and mechanization industry) 2. To shield domestic industries while they're growing to take on already efficient and scaled global competitors Benefiting labor or saving jobs is probably the stupidest use of tariffs, if one of the above isn't also in play, because it'd be m…

Food production isn’t some homogeneous entity, it might make sense to subsidize some level of staples but direct subsidies are more transparent and can be more easily limited. But, obviously industry doesn’t want the government feeding through to stop simply because the’ve scaled vastly past domestic consumption. Similarly, military procurement can subsidize relevant industries without impacting the wider economy. In…

I think that under-appreciates the slippery slope of political leverage. There's a reason Iowa is so hell-bent on keeping their primaries first.

Without explicitly and financially tying subsidy-fueled gains to modernization efforts, market participants begin to consider the subsidies as business as usual, plan around them, and get lazy.*

It removes a primary incentive to maintain pace with global technology improvements. Domestic industry whispers in politicians' ears that their global competitors are unfair for reasons X, Y, and Z, and they really need more subsidies to protect them.

{Benefit from politically driving new tariffs / subsidies} must never be higher than {benefit from investing in efficiency increases}.

* Lazy as measured by peak international efficiency, not work. E.g. a farmer who works their ass off manually farming is economically inefficient compared to one who mechanizes most of their work

Re: Temporary suspension of acceptance of mail to the United States

#236
post #226

Hot take: good The de minimis treatment has been abused beyond original intent. Specifically by China, but you can't fix that without fixing the general case. Fast fashion and other low-value drop air shipping across oceans is ecologically insane: as a planet we literally can't afford to keep doing this. And the US, by virtue of population + relative consumer wealth, is the biggest customer for this. Furthermore, the…

Small D2C packages aren't necessarily worse ecologically than a big US retailer importing a bunch of junk to store in warehouses and maybe sell to customers (else landfill).

Re: Temporary suspension of acceptance of mail to the United States

#237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of the larger effects of Trump's rule-by-EO approach that I think people are coming to realize: The US government moves slow and the US is big. Big-and-slow can be planned for. Big-and-fast cannot be planned for and is, in fact, hugely disruptive. Apart from all other parameters, the US does poorly with tyrannical-style rule because it's bad for business.

You could rule by EO and just have them take effect further out, no?

And, indeed, it could be argued that past administrations have done that. Congressional deadlock has been an issue in the US for quite some time, and the administration has to go on anyway. Off the top of my head, I am reminded of Obama essentially ceding control of marijuana policy to the states by making it clear to the ATF that prosecuting federal possession crime in states that had legalized the drug was legal, within their authority... And a short path to locking in a desk job at their current level indefinitely.

But when previous administrations did this, they (usually, as far as I know) consulted with domain experts on predictable consequences and set timelines to factor that in. This administration seems to have "effective immediately" as the only timeframe it's aware of.

Re: Temporary suspension of acceptance of mail to the United States

#238
post #3

This situation feels dumb. I feel like I am watching idiots cheer on someone doing parkor and that person getting his teeth smashed on a wall. Like, what is the point?

I don’t see why we should allow 0% imports but be shut out of exports. Yes yes according to some chart this is actually a good thing but I find it unfair. For centuries the theory was mercantilism which is the highest imbalance of trade in your favor is good. The last century was Keynesian “deficits don’t matter” where taken to its conclusion, the worst possible imbalance is good, because that means they have to rein…

> I’m open to the experiment where targeting a balanced trade with all countries as the goal

Do you mean balanced trade as a whole, so it would be OK to have deficits or surpluses with individual countries as long as the total surpluses match the total deficits? Or do you mean trade with each individual country should be balanced?

Re: Temporary suspension of acceptance of mail to the United States

#239

This needs to be repeated. Tariffs are a tax on ordinary citizens. Unlike regular taxes, tariffs are not progressive and therefore benefit the wealthy. These are the sort of things the poor and middle class voted for. To make the rich, richer. And then turn around and complain that rich are getting richer and they are getting poorer.

> This needs to be repeated. Tariffs are a tax on ordinary citizens. Unlike regular taxes, tariffs are not progressive and therefore benefit the wealthy.

No, people need to stop repeating it, because it's an extremely stupid anti-tax argument. Tariffs are meant to onshore production and raise wages. Telling half the story is simply lying. You might as well complain about buying food because it costs money. You might as well complain about all consumption because consumption is regressive.

The problem isn't tariffs, you can send that money to poor people. The problem is that nobody cares about poor people, including Trump. A lack of tariffs isn't going to make America moral.

One of the only things Trump is doing unbelievably well on is trade. Tariffs haven't been damaging at all. They should be more damaging, but the US is so dependent on foreign poverty that we have to leave any tariff scheme as filled with holes as swiss cheese. The fact is our manufacturing is so based in the exploitation of low-rights and low paid workers from other countries that entire industries would immediately start failing if we ended up in a real trade war with e.g. China.

> To make the rich, richer. And then turn around and complain that rich are getting richer and they are getting poorer.

These are Koch brothers policies you're advocating as if they're social justice. The reason why every capitalist you know is complaining about tariffs isn't because they make the rich richer (by some method yet to be explained.)

Post reply on HN