37 ms·

Possibly export fees? The article touches on the merchant advantage is reduced import costs, and pre-existing logistics network. I wished alot of Indian ecomm

Possibly export fees? The article touches on the merchant advantage is reduced import costs, and pre-existing logistics network. I wished alot of Indian ecommerce sites would ship out to North America easily... But not many of the big ones. China subsidizes delivery of packages... And why they can hawk an item for under a dollar including shipping. (Heck in Canada, it's minimum $1.20 to send a letter to the states)

jazoom 9y ago
In Australia it's $1.00 to send a letter to my neighbour.
- robryan 9y ago
  Even worse for a small package (200g), will cost you around $5 to your neighbour or about $3 from China. If we want to send the same package back via Auspost would expect at least $10.
  - toomanybeersies 9y ago
    I sent a book by NZ post to Switzerland. Cost me more than the value of the book to send it.
    - jlarocco 9y ago
      It was more than the price of the book, not the value. Since you sent it anyway, the book was valuable enough to ship despite the price of shipping it.
      - spraak 9y ago
        You really don't know the value in this case. You're arguing semantics but they are thr only one who in this case knows the value.
Spooky23 9y ago
It is less subsidy and more abuse of a treaty. US first class mail customers are actually the ones subsidizing your free shipping for a counterfeit “Star Winners” Lego minifig.
- markdown 9y ago
  > It is less subsidy and more abuse of a treaty. Serious question: Why do you call it "abuse"? Are the Chinese taking advantage of a loophole Americans left in a treaty?
  - Laforet 9y ago
    In a strict sense, yes. The loopholes has been there for decades but widespread exploitation did not start until around 2008-2010 when sellers in Asia realised that they could send trinkets to US customers for next to nothing and still make some profit. Additionally it is hard to collect import duty and VAT on small personal imports, but domestic sellers who buys stock in bulk are rarely exempt, so the price gap grows further.
    - frozenport 9y ago
      But bulk importers can withdraw Chinese vat? But the ebay seller can't?
    - fjsolwmv 9y ago
      It's not a loophole and it was a business deal not a treaty. The USPS exec thought he was being clever by getting free shipping to China, but he didn't realize that there is practically no mail shipping US to China, and lots of mail shipping China to US.
      - Laforet 9y ago
        >It's not a loophole and it was a business deal not a treaty. Participation in the Universal Post Union is a political matter. Countries cannot simply back out if they think certain terms are unfair. >The USPS exec thought he was being clever by getting free shipping to China, but he didn't realize that there is practically no mail shipping US to China, and lots of mail shipping China to US. For the same article it still costs China less to send to the US than the other way around because the former counts as a developing country, though the unbalanced volume does compound the problem. After all the scheme was not drafted with many small parcels of personal imports in mind and it will take decades to fix.

jazoom 9y ago

In Australia it's $1.00 to send a letter to my neighbour.

robryan 9y ago
Even worse for a small package (200g), will cost you around $5 to your neighbour or about $3 from China. If we want to send the same package back via Auspost would expect at least $10.
- toomanybeersies 9y ago
  I sent a book by NZ post to Switzerland. Cost me more than the value of the book to send it.
  - jlarocco 9y ago
    It was more than the price of the book, not the value. Since you sent it anyway, the book was valuable enough to ship despite the price of shipping it.
    - spraak 9y ago
      You really don't know the value in this case. You're arguing semantics but they are thr only one who in this case knows the value.

Spooky23 9y ago

It is less subsidy and more abuse of a treaty. US first class mail customers are actually the ones subsidizing your free shipping for a counterfeit “Star Winners” Lego minifig.

markdown 9y ago
> It is less subsidy and more abuse of a treaty. Serious question: Why do you call it "abuse"? Are the Chinese taking advantage of a loophole Americans left in a treaty?
- Laforet 9y ago
  In a strict sense, yes. The loopholes has been there for decades but widespread exploitation did not start until around 2008-2010 when sellers in Asia realised that they could send trinkets to US customers for next to nothing and still make some profit. Additionally it is hard to collect import duty and VAT on small personal imports, but domestic sellers who buys stock in bulk are rarely exempt, so the price gap grows further.
  - frozenport 9y ago
    But bulk importers can withdraw Chinese vat? But the ebay seller can't?
  - fjsolwmv 9y ago
    It's not a loophole and it was a business deal not a treaty. The USPS exec thought he was being clever by getting free shipping to China, but he didn't realize that there is practically no mail shipping US to China, and lots of mail shipping China to US.
    - Laforet 9y ago
      >It's not a loophole and it was a business deal not a treaty. Participation in the Universal Post Union is a political matter. Countries cannot simply back out if they think certain terms are unfair. >The USPS exec thought he was being clever by getting free shipping to China, but he didn't realize that there is practically no mail shipping US to China, and lots of mail shipping China to US. For the same article it still costs China less to send to the US than the other way around because the former counts as a developing country, though the unbalanced volume does compound the problem. After all the scheme was not drafted with many small parcels of personal imports in mind and it will take decades to fix.