5 ms·

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

by 013a 9y ago

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, legitimate shipping included, because they're allowed to abuse their workers and pay them much less, do we trust pure capitalism to properly prioritize the values of the American people? This really is the case of, say, Apple's electronics plants in China.

GavinMcG 9y ago
I think that second argument is a different case than the one this thread concerns. This isn't about different manufacturing environments - it's about literally the same product being distributed via a middleman or not. We've always benefited from Chinese labor abuses, and whether an American intermediary is involved doesn't change that.
woliveirajr 9y ago
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.
- mistermann 9y ago
  In theory it is not unidirectional, in practice it is. When it was written, all they really had to go on was theory.
  - woliveirajr 9y ago
    Hum... put yourself back in the 60's. Imagine you're signing a contract that says "I, the Postal Service of the country NNN, will deliver any letter that comes from any country to any city that I reach, no matter if it'll cost a 3 hours plane flight to deliver a 1 oz envelope". Fast forward to 2017, yes, now the agreement seems unfair because the deliver of goods changed a lot. Perhaps should be reviewed. But I wouldn't say it just worked on theory back then, neither will I say that now it is unidirectional in practice (because you still can make it go in any direction). And the main point isn't just that things made in China are cheaper. It's that China has so much freight going to all parts of the world that putting one container full of envelops with a single button inside doesn't cost a thing, so they win in on how much it costs to take an envelop from a post office inside China and deliver it to a USA / Europe / South America port. It costs about US 1,900 to take a container from Shangai to New York (source: https://www.searates.com https://www.searates.com ). That is cheap.
    - mistermann 9y ago
      In your first example, I doubt mail would be delivered to literally any remote location in the country, and only if there was some services delivered there sporadically would mail tag along for the ride. Back then they didn't entertain such ludicrous ideas as we do now. Shipping a container from Shanghai to NY is not the issue, it is that China pays less for shipping along the same route in the US and other western countries. They are paying less than others, on top of the fact that mail is largely unidirectional - so they're kind of cheating twice. If the shoe was on the other foot they'd be on top of it because they have more intelligent leadership than Western nations.
BearGoesChirp 9y ago
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 legal in the US (or other countries, this argument need not be just for the US). But there are some digital goods where we do not give this same treatment (namely digital material involving really bad child maltreatment). Regardless of the legality of where the material is produced, owning it in the US is illegal because it couldn't legally be produced in the US and funding such illegal action elsewhere is considered morally wrong enough to ban. Simply put, I think the core idea should be applied to all financial transactions. If one is buying a good or service that would be illegal in the US due to harm to another human, it should be illegal to buy or own in the US, even if where it is produced is legal. The law should prevent a person from harming another human by shopping around and finding wherever has the least legal protections.
- tsomctl 9y ago
  You might want to read one of the many pieces written about Henry Kissinger. The world is not a pleasant place.
- exelius 9y ago
  The problem is that the US has no moral high ground here. We too have prisoners manufacturing goods below minimum wage, and while you won't be jailed in the US because of your political affiliation, you definitely can be jailed because of your religion, ethnicity, etc. If we applied this to foreign transactions, foreign countries could easily use the same grounds to block goods and services coming from the US.
- mistermann 9y ago
  I agree, but I can't see how you would enforce this, whatever mechanism you put in place would be worked around immediately. Plus, it's not like US corporations who are benefiting from what is next-to-slave-labor are going to be terribly vigilant in making sure their manufacturers are compliant. In the end, greed almost always wins, even in the most "advanced" societies.
robert_foss 9y ago
As per your second argument, according to the same reasoning no products manufactured using forced prison labour like that of the US prison system should be legally sold.
- s73ver 9y ago
  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).
  - jessaustin 9y ago
    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...
    - ribosometronome 9y ago
      Generally, livable wage is not defined as "you won't starve to death" but a wage high enough to support a normal living. In the context of prison, this is a little abstracted because you can't really abstain a normal state of living. 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.html 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.
    - Dylan16807 9y ago
      For a living wage, you'd probably want to follow the rule that housing + food + transportation doesn't go over 2/3 of income. Especially bad is that 30¢/hr doesn't let you put nearly anything into savings. So I think it's easy to counter that argument, even ignoring the issue of imprisonment.
praneshp 9y ago
>> "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.
- 794CD01 9y ago
  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.
  - praneshp 9y ago
    I agree with you. That's why I said: "I think the second approach will cause trivial change, at best". From my observations as an outsider living here for 6 years or so, even widespread knowledge that factory conditions are bad will cause only a trivial reduction in sales.

by 013a 9y ago

GavinMcG 9y ago

I think that second argument is a different case than the one this thread concerns. This isn't about different manufacturing environments - it's about literally the same product being distributed via a middleman or not. We've always benefited from Chinese labor abuses, and whether an American intermediary is involved doesn't change that.

woliveirajr 9y ago

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.

mistermann 9y ago
In theory it is not unidirectional, in practice it is. When it was written, all they really had to go on was theory.
- woliveirajr 9y ago
  Hum... put yourself back in the 60's. Imagine you're signing a contract that says "I, the Postal Service of the country NNN, will deliver any letter that comes from any country to any city that I reach, no matter if it'll cost a 3 hours plane flight to deliver a 1 oz envelope". Fast forward to 2017, yes, now the agreement seems unfair because the deliver of goods changed a lot. Perhaps should be reviewed. But I wouldn't say it just worked on theory back then, neither will I say that now it is unidirectional in practice (because you still can make it go in any direction). And the main point isn't just that things made in China are cheaper. It's that China has so much freight going to all parts of the world that putting one container full of envelops with a single button inside doesn't cost a thing, so they win in on how much it costs to take an envelop from a post office inside China and deliver it to a USA / Europe / South America port. It costs about US 1,900 to take a container from Shangai to New York (source: https://www.searates.com https://www.searates.com ). That is cheap.
  - mistermann 9y ago
    In your first example, I doubt mail would be delivered to literally any remote location in the country, and only if there was some services delivered there sporadically would mail tag along for the ride. Back then they didn't entertain such ludicrous ideas as we do now. Shipping a container from Shanghai to NY is not the issue, it is that China pays less for shipping along the same route in the US and other western countries. They are paying less than others, on top of the fact that mail is largely unidirectional - so they're kind of cheating twice. If the shoe was on the other foot they'd be on top of it because they have more intelligent leadership than Western nations.

BearGoesChirp 9y ago

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 legal in the US (or other countries, this argument need not be just for the US). But there are some digital goods where we do not give this same treatment (namely digital material involving really bad child maltreatment). Regardless of the legality of where the material is produced, owning it in the US is illegal because it couldn't legally be produced in the US and funding such illegal action elsewhere is considered morally wrong enough to ban. Simply put, I think the core idea should be applied to all financial transactions. If one is buying a good or service that would be illegal in the US due to harm to another human, it should be illegal to buy or own in the US, even if where it is produced is legal. The law should prevent a person from harming another human by shopping around and finding wherever has the least legal protections.

tsomctl 9y ago
You might want to read one of the many pieces written about Henry Kissinger. The world is not a pleasant place.
exelius 9y ago
The problem is that the US has no moral high ground here. We too have prisoners manufacturing goods below minimum wage, and while you won't be jailed in the US because of your political affiliation, you definitely can be jailed because of your religion, ethnicity, etc. If we applied this to foreign transactions, foreign countries could easily use the same grounds to block goods and services coming from the US.
mistermann 9y ago
I agree, but I can't see how you would enforce this, whatever mechanism you put in place would be worked around immediately. Plus, it's not like US corporations who are benefiting from what is next-to-slave-labor are going to be terribly vigilant in making sure their manufacturers are compliant. In the end, greed almost always wins, even in the most "advanced" societies.

robert_foss 9y ago

As per your second argument, according to the same reasoning no products manufactured using forced prison labour like that of the US prison system should be legally sold.

s73ver 9y ago
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).
- jessaustin 9y ago
  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...
  - ribosometronome 9y ago
    Generally, livable wage is not defined as "you won't starve to death" but a wage high enough to support a normal living. In the context of prison, this is a little abstracted because you can't really abstain a normal state of living. 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.html 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.
  - Dylan16807 9y ago
    For a living wage, you'd probably want to follow the rule that housing + food + transportation doesn't go over 2/3 of income. Especially bad is that 30¢/hr doesn't let you put nearly anything into savings. So I think it's easy to counter that argument, even ignoring the issue of imprisonment.

praneshp 9y ago

>> "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.

794CD01 9y ago
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.
- praneshp 9y ago
  I agree with you. That's why I said: "I think the second approach will cause trivial change, at best". From my observations as an outsider living here for 6 years or so, even widespread knowledge that factory conditions are bad will cause only a trivial reduction in sales.