3 ms·

The USPS Inspector General did an audit [0] of the ePacket program in 2014, finding that the cost of the program could not be effectively calculated, though the

The USPS Inspector General did an audit [0] of the ePacket program in 2014, finding that the cost of the program could not be effectively calculated, though the USPS certainly lost money on this service in the preceding two fiscal years: > ePacket volume and revenue have increased, but the Postal Service still lost at least $39 million during FYs 2011 and 2012. Until accurate costs for ePackets can be identified and used as a basis for pricing, the risk of revenue loss for ePackets remains high. Wade Shepard first wrote about this [1] for Forbes in 2011, following the USPS's announcement of the program [2]. His commentary sets the program against a backdrop of a global shipping war and plummeting postal service revenues. He writes, "Essentially, U.S. shippers are partially paying higher shipping rates to make up for the hit the USPS takes giving subsidies to the Chinese." [0]: https://www.uspsoig.gov/document/inbound-china-epacket-costing-methodology https://www.uspsoig.gov/document/inbound-china-epacket-costi... [1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2017/11/05/how-the-usps-epacket-gives-postal-subsidies-to-chinese-e-commerce-merchants-to-ship-to-the-usa-cheap/#6e70553f40ca https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2017/11/05/how-the-... [2]: https://about.usps.com/news/national-releases/2011/pr11_037.pdf https://about.usps.com/news/national-releases/2011/pr11_037....

crispyambulance 9y ago
> He writes, "Essentially, U.S. shippers are partially paying higher shipping rates to make up for the hit the USPS takes giving subsidies to the Chinese." Yeah, but why?? What is the intent of this program? Is it some kind of global trade "kick-back" in exchange for something else or is it just a dumb idea? Even the audit doesn't address the reason for this bilateral agreement made in 2011. Moreover, even if the program "makes money" for the postal service it comes at the expense of hurting competitiveness of domestic mail-order. There must be some other side to the story, right? Protectionism is harmful in itself, but this seems like the exact opposite: active harm to domestic business in favor of Chinese business.
- AnssiH 9y ago
  From the linked Forbes article: > They came up with the ePacket, which is actually meant to be an improvement over the rates set by the UPU. In exchange for providing tracking and faster delivery times, ePacket partner countries agree to pay slightly higher rates. So the Chinese pay more for ePackets than they would for standard mail by UPU rates.

crispyambulance 9y ago

> He writes, "Essentially, U.S. shippers are partially paying higher shipping rates to make up for the hit the USPS takes giving subsidies to the Chinese." Yeah, but why?? What is the intent of this program? Is it some kind of global trade "kick-back" in exchange for something else or is it just a dumb idea? Even the audit doesn't address the reason for this bilateral agreement made in 2011. Moreover, even if the program "makes money" for the postal service it comes at the expense of hurting competitiveness of domestic mail-order. There must be some other side to the story, right? Protectionism is harmful in itself, but this seems like the exact opposite: active harm to domestic business in favor of Chinese business.

AnssiH 9y ago
From the linked Forbes article: > They came up with the ePacket, which is actually meant to be an improvement over the rates set by the UPU. In exchange for providing tracking and faster delivery times, ePacket partner countries agree to pay slightly higher rates. So the Chinese pay more for ePackets than they would for standard mail by UPU rates.