Bye bye discounted postal rates from China to USA

[merckxman]

President Trump plans to withdraw from a 144-year-old postal treaty that has allowed Chinese companies to ship small packages to the United States at a steeply discounted rate:
https://nyti.ms/2Af96SY

[Mikej]

So, did China give the US a discount in return?

[Big Dan]

Consumers will pay the hike.

[verticaldoug]

https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=634732388

NPR Planet Money had segment on the Universal Postal Union and how it works. It isn't a special discount to the chinese it is just chinese postal rates are cheaper in China and then benefit from the final mile in the US.

This was released on August 1, 2018

[Mikej]

[QUOTE=Big Dan;2442366]Consumers will pay the hike.[/QUOTE
It’s always more complicated than the article states-

[joosttx]

Consumers will pay the hike.

There is that tricle down thing :)

[bicycletricycle]

It was a stupid idea in the first place. The taxpayer does not need to be subsidizing Chinese, or any other countries, shipping

[Mark McM]

So, did China give the US a discount in return?

In a word, yes. All members of the Universal Postal Union have common agreed upon uniform flat rate for mail and small parcels. If you mailed a small parcel to a friend in Germany or Ghana or Ecuador from the US, you'd also get the same uniform rate as small parcels mailed from China. Often, accepting and delivering mail from other countries results in a small loss for the destination country's postal system, but it was considered a small price to pay for fostering international trade and communication. But more recently, with the rise of internet sales, the large volume of these parcels from Asia to the US has resulted in a major imbalance in costs. In affect, the US Postal Service is subsidizing the cost of shipping small items to the US from China. If the US produced small items that consumers in China were interested in buying directly from the US vendors, then there would potentially be a balance, but this is not currently the case.


And I disagree that it was a bad idea in the first place. When the Universal Postal Union was set up in 1874 (it was originally proposed by the US in 1863), it was a very good idea to foster international communication. Unfortunately, it's policies and agreements have not kept up with the times. Rather than from withdrawing from the agreement, the US should push for a change in terms.

[bicycletricycle]

"In recent years UPU members have encountered serious problems triggered by the enormous increase in e-commerce originating from the Far East, where the terminal dues do not cover the unit costs of delivery in the destination countries, and the volumes are so big that the losses cannot be compensated by better terminal dues from other traffic. In 2016 a new remuneration system was implemented with a focus on e-commerce,[13]

Though the 2016 balanced the costs to the delivery services, postage costs for shippers is still asymmetric. As of 2018, US companies pay more than twice as much to mail an item from a US plant to a US customer, than does a manufacturer in China to mail an item to a US customer."

this is from WIKI, originally from WSJ. It is cheaper for a Chinese factory to ship to a US address than a US factory. I don't think that sounds reasonable.


In a word, yes. All members of the Universal Postal Union have common agreed upon uniform flat rate for mail and small parcels. If you mailed a small parcel to a friend in Germany or Ghana or Ecuador from the US, you'd also get the same uniform rate as small parcels mailed from China. Often, accepting and delivering mail from other countries results in a small loss for the destination country's postal system, but it was considered a small price to pay for fostering international trade and communication. But more recently, with the rise of internet sales, the large volume of these parcels from Asia to the US has resulted in a major imbalance in costs. In affect, the US Postal Service is subsidizing the cost of shipping small items to the US from China. If the US produced small items that consumers in China were interested in buying directly from the US vendors, then there would potentially be a balance, but this is not currently the case.

[Mark McM]

Though the 2016 balanced the costs to the delivery services, postage costs for shippers is still asymmetric. As of 2018, US companies pay more than twice as much to mail an item from a US plant to a US customer, than does a manufacturer in China to mail an item to a US customer."

This is because China is still (erroneously) classified as a developing nation. In the UPU treaty, developing nations are given special discounts. When China first joined UPU decades ago, they were a developing nation - but now that they have achieved more economic wealth and power, they should be reclassified.

[bicycletricycle]

Yes, but why categorize at all? why not just charge market price for the service provided?

This is because China is still (erroneously) classified as a developing nation. In the UPU treaty, developing nations are given special discounts. When China first joined UPU decades ago, they were a developing nation - but now that they have achieved more economic wealth and power, they should be reclassified.

[Mark McM]

Yes, but why categorize at all? why not just charge market price for the service provided?

UPU is now a part of the United Nations, and the UN frequently has policies favoring developing nations.

When you say "market price", do you mean the actual cost of services in each nation, or do you mean a uniform cost for all nations? To me, it makes the most sense to have uniform cost - otherwise, you'd have a different set prices for each nation you wanted to send mail to (and that's hundreds of different nations), and the costs would vary day to day depending on exchange rates. that would be too cumbersome. Granted, there may be a better way to set the uniform costs, but I believe a uniform system is still best to promote international communication.

[bicycletricycle]

UPU is now a part of the United Nations, and the UN frequently has policies favoring developing nations.

When you say "market price", do you mean the actual cost of services in each nation, or do you mean a uniform cost for all nations? To me, it makes the most sense to have uniform cost - otherwise, you'd have a different set prices for each nation you wanted to send mail to (and that's hundreds of different nations), and the costs would vary day to day depending on exchange rates. that would be too cumbersome. Granted, there may be a better way to set the uniform costs, but I believe a uniform system is still best to promote international communication.

I mean the cost should be what the interested parties agree to. An international price fixing scheme seems a bit a bit overkill. I am sure the individual parties can come to an agreement on their own.

[MikeD]

Good riddance. I'm wary of anything shipped from China, especially when purchased on eBay. It's likely to be counterfeit.

[ColonelJLloyd]

I mean the cost should be what the interested parties agree to. An international price fixing scheme seems a bit a bit overkill. I am sure the individual parties can come to an agreement on their own.

Inefficiencies be damned?

[Mikej]

Thanks Mark Mcm, I was unaware of this agreement.

[GonaSovereign]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Postal_Union

UPU has been a tremendously good thing and I guarantee everyone here has benefitted tremendously from it. (You reading this? You benefited.)

China is taking advantage of it today, but the UPU is a significant component of CIVILIZATION. You mail something to a friend in another part of the world and it arrives. Your friend receives it because the the foreign post office delivers it to him. You didn't give those foreign postal carriers a penny, and yet it still arrived. That's because reasonable countries can work out mutually beneficial agreements.

Sure, some of those on this thread will say "I don't have friends in China, so who cares?" But I invite you consider something for a second: do you think that, just maybe, a similar agreement got mail from one state to the next across your country at one point? I'm sure some of your ancestors felt the Californians were ripping off the New Yorkers, but surely you can see there was some benefit.

[oldpotatoe]

President Trump plans to withdraw from a 144-year-old postal treaty that has allowed Chinese companies to ship small packages to the United States at a steeply discounted rate:
https://nyti.ms/2Af96SY

The trade war continues with China..:eek:
Just in time for the midterms, more that hurts 'mainstreet'...

[oldpotatoe]

Good riddance. I'm wary of anything shipped from China, especially when purchased on eBay. It's likely to be counterfeit.

Where do ya shop? For those t-Shirts or socks? Maybe that new cord for to charge your phone? WH thinks he's 'hurting' China, but with China's government 'type' and financial power, this continues to hurt main street...
A trade deficit isn't 'losing'...copy to DJT...:rolleyes:

[bicycletricycle]

Inefficiencies be damned?

The USPS is not a shining example of efficiency. By contrast, private logistics companies are often sighted for their innovations.

[ColonelJLloyd]

The USPS is not a shining example of efficiency. By contrast, private logistics companies are often sighted for their innovations.

Not the inefficiencies to which I was referring. I'm talking about the disruption of business that would come about when it's up to "individual buyers and sellers to come to an agreement on their own". Seems like a flippant statement that ignores some complex micro and macro economic consequences. That said, this isn't my wheelhouse.

[MikeD]

Where do ya shop? For those t-Shirts or socks? Maybe that new cord for to charge your phone? WH thinks he's 'hurting' China, but with China's government 'type' and financial power, this continues to hurt main street...

A trade deficit isn't 'losing'...copy to DJT...[emoji57]



Do you think this product is real or counterfeit? Loctite 220 50ml for about half of what I can find it for here for here in the US. https://www.ebay.com/itm/LOCTITE-220-Mid-Strength-Wicking-Mil-Spec-Blue-Threadlock-50ml-Free-Ship-USA/331942132568?epid=1881336780&hash=item4d494afb58:g:6bYAAOSwa~BYPkVR

Counterfeit bicycle handlebars, helmets, stems etc., many of which are unsafe. There was a counterfeit Specialized helmet in the news recently that wouldn't pass impact testing.

And China is hurting, just look at their stock market. The EU puts a 45% tariff on bicyles from China, much more protectionist than we are. Why don't you complain about that?

[bicycletricycle]

Not the inefficiencies to which I was referring. I'm talking about the disruption of business that would come about when it's up to "individual buyers and sellers to come to an agreement on their own". Seems like a flippant statement that ignores some complex micro and macro economic consequences. That said, this isn't my wheelhouse.

By "interested parties" I did not mean "individual buyers and sellers", I am not suggesting we abolish shipping companies. I just meant that this international treaty seems to be getting in the way of the current interested parties (USPS and China Post) from arranging an agreement that would let both entities continue to operate profitably. The USPS is currently loosing money because of the current arrangement and apparently they are not allowed to raise their prices, this does not seem reasonable to me.

Prices will rise when importing items from China, perhaps it will be more expensive to ship to China as well. I just don't see how we can expect the USPS to ship items from China at a loss. They should be free to negotiate a price that makes sense for their operation.

[lemondvictoire]

Do you think this product is real or counterfeit? Loctite 220 50ml for about half of what I can find it for here for here in the US. https://www.ebay.com/itm/LOCTITE-220-Mid-Strength-Wicking-Mil-Spec-Blue-Threadlock-50ml-Free-Ship-USA/331942132568?epid=1881336780&hash=item4d494afb58:g:6bYAAOSwa~BYPkVR

Counterfeit bicycle handlebars, helmets, stems etc., many of which are unsafe. There was a counterfeit Specialized helmet in the news recently that wouldn't pass impact testing.

And China is hurting, just look at their stock market. The EU puts a 45% tariff on bicyles from China, much more protectionist than we are. Why don't you complain about that?

Item is real loctite made by Henkel Loctite Asia Pacific
and
Made in China

[MikeD]

Item is real loctite made by Henkel Loctite Asia Pacific

and

Made in China



That's what it says, if you believe that.

[oldpotatoe]

Do you think this product is real or counterfeit? Loctite 220 50ml for about half of what I can find it for here for here in the US. https://www.ebay.com/itm/LOCTITE-220-Mid-Strength-Wicking-Mil-Spec-Blue-Threadlock-50ml-Free-Ship-USA/331942132568?epid=1881336780&hash=item4d494afb58:g:6bYAAOSwa~BYPkVR

Counterfeit bicycle handlebars, helmets, stems etc., many of which are unsafe. There was a counterfeit Specialized helmet in the news recently that wouldn't pass impact testing.

And China is hurting, just look at their stock market. The EU puts a 45% tariff on bicyles from China, much more protectionist than we are. Why don't you complain about that?

I'm complaining about the current trade war with China(and potentially with the other 'foes', the EU, SouthKorea, Japan, Canada, Mexico) that will do nothing but pump up one individuals ego(tough guy!) but hurt the 'guy in the street', meaning you and me. PLUS it's based on an ignorant, comic book version of what trade deficits and surpluses really mean, particularly when one 'guy' can't even agree on the amounts..

[lemondvictoire]

That's what it says, if you believe that.

I got some and Ebay seller has sold tons of this stuff and seller is not from China.. so discount rate doesn't apply...

[MikeD]

I got some and Ebay seller has sold tons of this stuff and seller is not from China.. so discount rate doesn't apply...


I bought a set of fake Bose QC35 headphones. Seller was from Malaysia and product shipped from China.

Maybe this Loctite is legit, maybe it isn't. I believe I'm rightfully suspicious and you have no definitive proof either way.

[MattTuck]

By "interested parties" I did not mean "individual buyers and sellers", I am not suggesting we abolish shipping companies. I just meant that this international treaty seems to be getting in the way of the current interested parties (USPS and China Post) from arranging an agreement that would let both entities continue to operate profitably. The USPS is currently loosing money because of the current arrangement and apparently they are not allowed to raise their prices, this does not seem reasonable to me.

Prices will rise when importing items from China, perhaps it will be more expensive to ship to China as well. I just don't see how we can expect the USPS to ship items from China at a loss. They should be free to negotiate a price that makes sense for their operation.

+1.

However, USPS has a lot of problems, and I suspect this is a pretty small one. I'd love to see the USPS allowed to sell non-mail products at their offices. Sort of like a convenient store, that also does mail. Their problems are big, need to be addressed on the revenue side as well as the cost side.

But on this topic, there's a big difference between, a policy meant to facilitate individuals sending parcels to each other (which I can see the argument for reciprocal subsidies), and a policy that subsidizes profit making businesses to send parcels. The latter, in my opinion can pay their fair share if they are making a business out of sending products to customers.

[MikeD]

By "interested parties" I did not mean "individual buyers and sellers", I am not suggesting we abolish shipping companies. I just meant that this international treaty seems to be getting in the way of the current interested parties (USPS and China Post) from arranging an agreement that would let both entities continue to operate profitably. The USPS is currently loosing money because of the current arrangement and apparently they are not allowed to raise their prices, this does not seem reasonable to me.



Prices will rise when importing items from China, perhaps it will be more expensive to ship to China as well. I just don't see how we can expect the USPS to ship items from China at a loss. They should be free to negotiate a price that makes sense for their operation.


Does this affect product purchased from UK vendors like Merlin Cycles, CRC, Ribble, Wiggle, etc.? I've bought stuff from Merlin with free shipping. I mean I think this postal treaty covers more countries than just China?

[bicycletricycle]

One of USPS's biggest problems is their requirement to prefund their retirement liabilities instead of a pay as you go scheme like almost every other organization on the planet. This prevented them from reinvesting profits into the business for 11+ years (2006-2017)

https://about.usps.com/who-we-are/financials/annual-reports/fy2010/ar2010_4_002.htm

+1.

However, USPS has a lot of problems, and I suspect this is a pretty small one. I'd love to see the USPS allowed to sell non-mail products at their offices. Sort of like a convenient store, that also does mail. Their problems are big, need to be addressed on the revenue side as well as the cost side.

But on this topic, there's a big difference between, a policy meant to facilitate individuals sending parcels to each other (which I can see the argument for reciprocal subsidies), and a policy that subsidizes profit making businesses to send parcels. The latter, in my opinion can pay their fair share if they are making a business out of sending products to customers.

[ColonelJLloyd]

One of USPS's biggest problems is their requirement to prefund their retirement liabilities instead of a pay as you go scheme like almost every other organization on the planet. This prevented them from reinvesting profits into the business for 11+ years (2006-2017)

https://about.usps.com/who-we-are/financials/annual-reports/fy2010/ar2010_4_002.htm

I'm confused by some of the arguments here. Do we not agree that the USPS is a governmental agency and not an independent for-profit entity? I'm not saying that it shouldn't be able to act in the interest of the organization, but I am saying that if it had done so throughout its history then there would have been serious detrimental costs to American society writ large over the last 150 years. Are you essentially saying "yes, but that was then and this is now and they should more or less be privatized or otherwise behave as a purely for-profit entity"?

[lemondvictoire]

I bought a set of fake Bose QC50 headphones. Seller was from Malaysia and product shipped from China.

Maybe this Loctite is legit, maybe it isn't. I believe I'm rightfully suspicious and you have no definitive proof either way.

Seller feedbacks help...99.9% from that seller of loctite

[bicycletricycle]

I'm confused by some of the arguments here. Do we not agree that the USPS is a governmental agency and not an independent for-profit entity? I'm not saying that it shouldn't be able to act in the interest of the organization, but I am saying that if it had done so throughout its history then there would have been serious detrimental costs to American society writ large over the last 150 years. Are you essentially saying "yes, but that was then and this is now and they should more or less be privatized or otherwise behave as a purely for-profit entity"?

USPS gets no money from the federal government, it does benefit from a legal monopoly on first class mail and some tax policies. It has to pay for itself and unless we are prepared to compensate it as taxpayers through subsidies for cheaper mail from China it should be allowed to try and establish prices that allow it to stay in business.

I am actually curious and not being a smart ass, what "serious detrimental costs to American society" do you speak of?

[MattTuck]

We may have been spared this whole Armstrong saga if the USPS wasn't looking out for itself by marketing its name in Europe. I assume that was the serious detrimental costs to society he was talking about.

[bicycletricycle]

We may have been spared this whole Armstrong saga if the USPS wasn't looking out for itself by marketing its name in Europe. I assume that was the serious detrimental costs to society he was talking about.

:fight:

[MattTuck]

:fight:

It's Friday. :) A little humor never hurt anyone.


For real though, junk mail strikes me as the kind of weird social cost that the USPS ignited. Virtually no one wanted unsolicited mail, yet the postal service gave these mailers steep discounts on rates, and expanded their physical and human infrastructure to cope with the increased volume of junk mail.

Much like the debate about parcels from China, had the USPS priced junk mail to reflect a natural market rate, it would have kept volumes lower.

[MikeD]

Seller feedbacks help...99.9% from that seller of loctite


Another example, I bought some KMC quicklinks from this Amazon seller rated 4.3 out of 5 https://www.amazon.com/KMC-Missing-10-speed-Reusable-Pairs/product-reviews/B00K7X8J7G/ref=cm_cr_getr_d_paging_btm_next_2?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews&filterByStar=one_star&pageNumber=2

I had several of them break and, if you read some of the reviews, there is some evidence that they are knockoffs from China.

It's debatable as to whether they are counterfeit or not, but I'm just saying that a good seller rating does not necessarily mean that a product they are selling is authentic.

[bicycletricycle]

I don't know much about the junk mail. I don't think anybody forced the post office to do it so I would imagine they made money off of the whole thing. I hate junk mail.


It's Friday. :) A little humor never hurt anyone.


For real though, junk mail strikes me as the kind of weird social cost that the USPS ignited. Virtually no one wanted unsolicited mail, yet the postal service gave these mailers steep discounts on rates, and expanded their physical and human infrastructure to cope with the increased volume of junk mail.

Much like the debate about parcels from China, had the USPS priced junk mail to reflect a natural market rate, it would have kept volumes lower.

[Big Dan]

USPS gets no money from the federal government, it does benefit from a legal monopoly on first class mail and some tax policies. It has to pay for itself and unless we are prepared to compensate it as taxpayers through subsidies for cheaper mail from China it should be allowed to try and establish prices that allow it to stay in business.

I am actually curious and not being a smart ass, what "serious detrimental costs to American society" do you speak of?

Tell me what private company is going to do your first class mail for 45 cents?
Have you ever worked for the Post Office?
Btw the junk mail helps the post office, it's what we used to do on Saturdays.

[bicycletricycle]

Tell me what private company is going to do your first class mail for 45 cents?
Have you ever worked for the Post Office?
Btw the junk mail helps the post office, it's what we used to do on Saturdays.

1. Well, right now, it is illegal for other companies to deliver 1st class mail. So I have no choice. I have no idea if the cost of sending an envelope would go up or down if their was competition. As a rule, competition drives costs down. On the other hand, the Postal Regulatory Commission does seem to suppress the price of stamps for the "good of the people". I think it is amazing that you can send a letter for the price of a stamp and I greatly appreciate it.

2. I have not worked for the post office.

3. I would assume junk mail would have been a net gain for the post office, or else they wouldn't have done it.

I love the post office and I want it to stick around. To do so I think they need the ability to adjust their prices to reflect their operating costs.

[ColonelJLloyd]

I love the post office and I want it to stick around. To do so I think they need the ability to adjust their prices to reflect their operating costs.

That's the crux of it. Be that increased prices, a change in its expenses (funding of retirement benefits) or subsidies is the debate, I suppose. Perhaps a mix of all three is best.

I am actually curious and not being a smart ass, what "serious detrimental costs to American society" do you speak of?

Absence of a means of communication and commerce accessible to the entire population. I thought the historical significance of the US postal service was pretty universally agreed upon.

I gotta say, though, I'm bored with this topic and I'm gonna sit the rest out.

[bicycletricycle]

Absence of a means of communication and commerce accessible to the entire population. I thought the historical significance of the US postal service was pretty universally agreed upon.

I gotta say, though, I'm bored with this topic and I'm gonna sit the rest out.

Oh, I agree. I just think they should be able to set a rate that keeps them in business.

[Big Dan]

1. Well, right now, it is illegal for other companies to deliver 1st class mail. So I have no choice. I have no idea if the cost of sending an envelope would go up or down if their was competition. As a rule, competition drives costs down. On the other hand, the Postal Regulatory Commission does seem to suppress the price of stamps for the "good of the people". I think it is amazing that you can send a letter for the price of a stamp and I greatly appreciate it.

2. I have not worked for the post office.

3. I would assume junk mail would have been a net gain for the post office, or else they wouldn't have done it.

I love the post office and I want it to stick around. To do so I think they need the ability to adjust their prices to reflect their operating costs.

I'm just amazed that you survive in this world.
Do you post stuff straight from a text book?
Almost peed in my pants.

[bicycletricycle]

I'm just amazed that you survive in this world.
Do you post stuff straight from a text book?
Almost peed in my pants.

:)
May I ask what is so humorous?

[ptourkin]

:)
May I ask what is so humorous?

In these long threads you seem to be working your way through some very elementary concepts very slowly, starting with a statement that reflects some kind of libertarian 101 and then slowly conceding points and coming to a different place.

I respect that you are on a journey, but you can probably save the public few steps on the way.

Also your sig. Always your sig.

[bicycletricycle]

I accept you criticism.

We are talking about the post office being more able to set their own prices. I have been interested in this topic for a year or so after doing some research on how things on eBay from China are so cheap to ship here. I am sorry if my posts are not to your liking. I am hoping to learn more about the subject, it sounds like we have a retired USPS employee here and I am interested in their viewpoint and any info they may have on mail delivery costs.

I can think of many negative things to say about your posts as a whole, but I don't write them down because your a person and I respect your point of view.


In these long threads you seem to be working your way through some very elementary concepts very slowly, starting with a statement that reflects some kind of libertarian 101 and then slowly conceding points and coming to a different place.

I respect that you are on a journey, but you can probably save the public few steps on the way.

Also your sig. Always your sig.

[oldpotatoe]

You all can debate the USPS and it’s pricing policies till the cows come home, but this WH did this for one reason and one reason only, to hurt China, our new adversary in the Cold War world...to think otherwise is naive. It’s trump being the ‘tough guy’ on trade with China cuz they won’t roll over for him like some springer spaniel.

[bicycletricycle]

You all can debate the USPS and it’s pricing policies till the cows come home, but this WH did this for one reason and one reason only, to hurt China, our new adversary in the Cold War world...to think otherwise is naive. It’s trump being the ‘tough guy’ on trade with China cuz they won’t roll over for him like some springer spaniel.

You my friend, are 100% correct.

[drewskey]

This post has thoroughly educated me as to why all my name-brand-'inspired' sunglasses from China were free shipping after being only 13 bucks.

[crankles]

I like USPS. and to paraphrase Kathleen Madigan, I'm still surprised that I can put a 50c stamp on a letter and a few days later, a complete stranger will hand deliver it to my niece in Fairbanks.

all hail the USPS and all it's warts and foibles.

[OtayBW]

i like usps. And to paraphrase kathleen madigan, i'm still surprised that i can put a 50c stamp on a letter and a few days later, a complete stranger will hand deliver it to my niece in fairbanks.

All hail the usps and all it's warts and foibles.

+1

[MikeD]

It's Friday. :) A little humor never hurt anyone.





For real though, junk mail strikes me as the kind of weird social cost that the USPS ignited. Virtually no one wanted unsolicited mail, yet the postal service gave these mailers steep discounts on rates, and expanded their physical and human infrastructure to cope with the increased volume of junk mail.



Much like the debate about parcels from China, had the USPS priced junk mail to reflect a natural market rate, it would have kept volumes lower.



I used to deliver mail back in the '70's as a summer job. The PO I worked for used to let the junk mail pile up in a giant mountain on the PO floor. When it got big enough, they'd bring the mail sorters in on the weekend on overtime to sort it. Being a mail carrier, I used to hate that practice as it put a lot more burden on me to deliver it all at one time. Even back then, they said they made a lot of money on junk mail. They also talked about canceling Saturday delivery to save money (which they always talk about but never happens). Congress won't let the PO run more profitably by consolidating PO's, raising postal rates to cover costs, etc. so it's a money losing enterprise. These days, competition from UPS, FedEx, etc. ate into the PO's business, and the internet with electronic delivery of documents hurt first class mail volumes. The PO has to deliver to everyone in the country like those that live out in the boonies, so they can only do so much to cut costs in this environment.

[Gartenmeister]

Does this affect product purchased from UK vendors like Merlin Cycles, CRC, Ribble, Wiggle, etc.? I've bought stuff from Merlin with free shipping. I mean I think this postal treaty covers more countries than just China?

I am also interested in this question.

[verticaldoug]

I am also interested in this question.


The answer is yes but with a long tail. The UPU essentially governs all international mail. It is one thing to say you will exit the UPU , it is another thing to figure out the practical real world issues which will take time to renegotiate.

The reality is while the US tries to renegotiate rates, you will need to continue to honor the existing set-up. Otherwise, your international mail stops.

Now the practical issues to be renegotiated will take a long time. I think nothing changes short term or medium term.

[oldpotatoe]

I like USPS. and to paraphrase Kathleen Madigan, I'm still surprised that I can put a 50c stamp on a letter and a few days later, a complete stranger will hand deliver it to my niece in Fairbanks.

all hail the USPS and all it's warts and foibles.

Just got a guy I know send me postal rates in the Netherlands..1st class letter, 1 ounce or less, inside the Netherlands(small country)..$.83..so...:)

[nickl]

Attempting to hurt China is a fools game since they have many tools to retaliate giving them a strategic and economic advantage.

Keep in mind they hold $1.17T in US debt that if liquidated quickly could do serious damage to our economy.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/05/chinas-1-point-2-trillion-weapon-that-could-be-used-in-a-us-trade-war.html

The Chinese also hold a virtual monopoly in strategic rare earth materials essential for our electronics and defense industries.

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/2018/05/02/americas-critical-minerals-problem-has-gone-from-bad-to-worse/

Bottom line is that our economic relationships with other countries including China during the past 20+ years have been in a delicate balance where all sides have largely benefited. Deliberate attempts to disrupt this equilibrium may have dire consequences.

[OtayBW]

Attempting to hurt China is a fools game since they have many tools to retaliate giving them a strategic and economic advantage.

Keep in mind they hold $1.17T in US debt that if liquidated quickly could do serious damage to our economy.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/05/chinas-1-point-2-trillion-weapon-that-could-be-used-in-a-us-trade-war.html

The Chinese also hold a virtual monopoly in strategic rare earth materials essential for our electronics and defense industries.

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/2018/05/02/americas-critical-minerals-problem-has-gone-from-bad-to-worse/

Bottom line is that our economic relationships with other countries including China during the past 20+ years have been in a delicate balance where all sides have largely benefited. Deliberate attempts to disrupt this equilibrium may have dire consequences.
Delicate balance has morphed into 'stability' by sledgehammer'.

[Davist]

our new adversary in the Cold War world... Where you been for the last 60 years?! We get it, you don't like the current occupant of the white house

[MikeD]

The price of beer is going up due to climate change https://www.popsci.com/future-weather-climate-beer-prices?CMPID=ene102018. That'll probably hit most of us a lot harder than this trade war has.

[Cicli]

The price of beer is going up due to climate change https://www.popsci.com/future-weather-climate-beer-prices?CMPID=ene102018. That'll probably hit most of us a lot harder than this trade war has.

What about chinese beer shipped via usps?

[Cicli]

......Deleted.....

[bigbill]

Where you been for the last 60 years?! We get it, you don't like the current occupant of the white house

I know he spent a good part of that fighting the Cold War. I'm ambivalent about the guy in the White House, I'm ok with forcing China's hand on this, we'll get a new agreement that will be less one sided because all sides are interested in trade. The status quo had become outdated.

[oldpotatoe]

Where you been for the last 60 years?! We get it, you don't like the current occupant of the white house

Even tho China and Russia still have nukes pointed at the US, the ‘cold war’ essentially ended with the fall of the Soviet Union. 1991 ish, 27 years ago. Altho sometimes uneasy, agreements with the 2 past adversaries were formed and existed fairly well, until now. The US is more at odds with China than it has been since the Cultural Revolution...China(read militarily) is expanding rapidly. Taking past trade agreements and throwing them in the trash, based on ignorance, doesn’t help. Right now it’s ‘negotiation’ with a sledge hammer. IMHO of course.

[Plum Hill]

Read Pompeo says agreement will be renegotiated or the US will pull out in a year.
We might not be getting mail from any other countries in the future.

[Cicli]

Read Pompeo says agreement will be renegotiated or the US will pull out in a year.
We might not be getting mail from any other countries in the future.

In this day and age. Who cares? I barely want mail from this country.

[MikeD]

Interesting article: https://venturebeat.com/2018/10/19/why-trumps-trade-war-could-be-the-tipping-point-for-american-manufacturing/

[bigbill]

Interesting article: https://venturebeat.com/2018/10/19/why-trumps-trade-war-could-be-the-tipping-point-for-american-manufacturing/

When companies set up manufacturing in China in the 90's, it was about making products to be sold in Asia instead of shipping them. China responded by building infrastructure including transportation to shipping ports. Then it became financially viable to do large scale manufacturing in China. My last employer has manufacturing plants in China for products sold in China and intellectual property theft has been rampant. When employees from the US travel to China, they aren't allowed to take their laptops due to unsecured networks. The plants in China are expanding on their own by reverse engineering corporate designs. My current employer gets some components from China but work it through a third party to avoid IP theft.

[Davist]

When companies set up manufacturing in China in the 90's, it was about making products to be sold in Asia instead of shipping them. China responded by building infrastructure including transportation to shipping ports. Then it became financially viable to do large scale manufacturing in China. My last employer has manufacturing plants in China for products sold in China and intellectual property theft has been rampant. When employees from the US travel to China, they aren't allowed to take their laptops due to unsecured networks. The plants in China are expanding on their own by reverse engineering corporate designs. My current employer gets some components from China but work it through a third party to avoid IP theft.

Exactly, I travel to China every couple years and this is the crux of the issue. In my experience, even my Chinese customers are wary about using "in China/for China" products and pay a premium for EU/NAM products, surprisingly (to me) close to US market prices. Seems the only ones buying the impossibly cheap stuff are EU and NAM folks through the ebays and the like. This is what makes the subsidizing of shipping rates for this "popcorn" by US postal beyond absurd.

[MikeD]

Interesting article on this subject: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/trump-right-leave-universal-postal-union/573709/

[mt2u77]

I just got back (today) from my 3rd China business trip in the last year. The air in Beijing was consistently atrocious. I mean, it’s always bad, but this trip was something else. The locals told me the government recently relaxed pollution controls in response to the trade war, and that’s why the air was worse than normal— so thanks trade war!

On a side note, Paceline seems to be blocked in China. I had to go thru a VPN to get my fix. They must have read a thread or two on here bashing Chinese carbon!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk