4 ms·

If this is about China, then why wouldn't other countries want to join us in changing the fee structure? Better to team up with other nations than pull out and

If this is about China, then why wouldn't other countries want to join us in changing the fee structure? Better to team up with other nations than pull out and be all alone on a framework that's far bigger than China and relates to all global shipping, no? Genuinely asking because I am unfamiliar with these issues.

AimForTheBushes 7y ago
That is the route they are currently pursuing. Leaving the global postal union is dependent on the outcome of a vote.
Svip 7y ago
The current US President approaches diplomacy likes real estate deals. A good approach - in real estate markets - is to threaten to walk away from a deal. Unfortunately, it doesn't work quite the same way in international diplomacy.
- ttul 7y ago
  Yes, because international diplomacy is like 18-dimensional chess. The two parties are negotiating over a multitude of different things in parallel.
- blfr 7y ago
  Being able to walk away from the deal is crucial in every negotiation. There is no limit to real estate. It's the same in employment, business, and yes, international diplomacy.
  - Svip 7y ago
    Except in real estate, employment and business, you are usually only talking about a single contract during negotiations. There is little either party can offer the other outside of that contract. In diplomacy, there is so much going on between states, that you can offer completely unrelated incentives in negotiations.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > A good approach - in real estate markets - is to threaten to walk away from a deal. Unfortunately, it doesn't work quite the same way in international diplomacy. I think it actually does; what the President (assuming he is actually trying to acheive what he overtly claims to in negotiations, which is far from obviously true) seems not to understand about international negotiations is that while it can be very useful to make the other side believe you will walk away from a deal if they don't bend far enough, making a public threat to do so that makes it hard for them to claim victory (particularly, to their domestic constituents) when a deal that is actually in your favor is reached makes it politically difficult for them to compromise. And this is true for authoritarian regimes as well as democratic ones; the absence of electoral accountability doesn't mean that domestic support is irrelevant (it just means opposition lacks a nonviolent safety valve), and even in regimes that tightly control public information, influential elites which the leadership wants to keep in line will generally be aware of public information from outside of regime channels.
- briandear 7y ago
  > Unfortunately, it doesn't work quite the same way in international diplomacy. However, the "traditional" way doesn't work either. Case in point: EU puts tariffs on a wide variety of US goods -- tariffs that have been in effect for decades. The EU, even before Trump, charged a 10% tariff on US cars, while the US only charged a 2.5% tariff on European cars. The EU taxed US apples at 17%, grapes at 20%. Clothing, and all sort of other products are and were heavily taxed. California and other American wines are taxed at double the rate of EU wines entering the United States. "Trump invented tariffs" is the the current media narrative, but it's not even close to being true. The EU taxes the hell of US goods. Try to ship a spare part of a child's stroller from the US. I paid a $40 tax for a part that cost me $25. Duties, tariffs and other taxes are oppressive and the US should fight back. If the EU doesn't want tariffs -- they can eliminate the taxes they've historically put on US products. But they only complain now because Trump is trying to play their own protectionist game. So Trumps's "real estate" approach is a pretty novel one -- and one that has actually forced the EU to negotiate in good faith, unlike the decades were US products were taxed unfairly. The EU has tariffs on almost everything -- I'm not sure why Trump is the bad guy in a trade war here. Trump is just the first president to actually stand up to the EU when it comes to trade. Why the hell the EU can get away with decades of tariffs and doing things like subsidizing Airbus illegally[1] is beyond me. Trump is the "bad guy" because he actually cares about American interests before those of the EU? How crazy. The EU member leaders are welcome to look after the best interests of their countries as well. There's nothing radical about that. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44120525 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44120525
  - pravda 7y ago
    >Try to ship a spare part of a child's stroller from the US. I paid a $40 tax for a part that cost me $25. Duties, tariffs and other taxes are oppressive and the US should fight back The US should fight back? Shouldn't EU consumers fight back against the actions of their government? If a European country has a 10% tariff on American-made autos, who is the victim? The European auto buyer. Who is the beneficiary? The stockholder of the European auto manufacturer.
    - prepend 7y ago
skxnslwl 7y ago
Not sure if this is the case with the postal union, but many multilateral organizations are structured one-vote-per-country and the Chinese side is able, by dint of its greater leverage with corrupt small governments, to get a disproportionate amount of influence. (The obvious caveats apply: no idea if this applies in this particular instance; this doesn't mean that withdrawing from international agreements is always the appropriate step for the US to take; other voting systems have their own problems)
- markdown 7y ago
  > by dint of its greater leverage with corrupt small governments Because any nation that isn't on your side is corrupt, right?
  - krapht 7y ago
    > Because any nation that isn't on your side is corrupt, right? Do you have experience living in countries where you need to bribe everyone everywhere to get anything done? You're missing the point, and I doubt you're speaking from any sort of authority when you say these decisions are not made via shady backroom deals.
    - markdown 7y ago
      > Do you have experience living in countries where you need to bribe everyone everywhere to get anything done? Yup, two years in India over a decade ago when it was much worse than it is now. At the end of the day, a country will ally with or back the country from which they can extract the maximum benefit. Game theory applies. Many Pacific Island countries (many of the tiny countries you allude to) have benefited greatly from switching allegiance to China. In contrast, the US has much bigger fish to fry (billions in aid to Israel supposedly for mid-east stability) and paid these tiny nations no attention whatsoever over the past few decades. > Do you have experience living in countries where you need to bribe everyone everywhere to get anything done? I doubt you're speaking from any sort of authority when you say these decisions are not made via shady backroom deals. Do you mean like the US, where unlike anywhere else in the world, bribery (cunningly called lobbying) is both completely legal and publicly accepted?
DeonPenny 7y ago
They just like other situation with china other countries are afraid of their wrath

AimForTheBushes 7y ago

That is the route they are currently pursuing. Leaving the global postal union is dependent on the outcome of a vote.

Svip 7y ago

The current US President approaches diplomacy likes real estate deals. A good approach - in real estate markets - is to threaten to walk away from a deal. Unfortunately, it doesn't work quite the same way in international diplomacy.

ttul 7y ago
Yes, because international diplomacy is like 18-dimensional chess. The two parties are negotiating over a multitude of different things in parallel.
blfr 7y ago
Being able to walk away from the deal is crucial in every negotiation. There is no limit to real estate. It's the same in employment, business, and yes, international diplomacy.
- Svip 7y ago
  Except in real estate, employment and business, you are usually only talking about a single contract during negotiations. There is little either party can offer the other outside of that contract. In diplomacy, there is so much going on between states, that you can offer completely unrelated incentives in negotiations.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> A good approach - in real estate markets - is to threaten to walk away from a deal. Unfortunately, it doesn't work quite the same way in international diplomacy. I think it actually does; what the President (assuming he is actually trying to acheive what he overtly claims to in negotiations, which is far from obviously true) seems not to understand about international negotiations is that while it can be very useful to make the other side believe you will walk away from a deal if they don't bend far enough, making a public threat to do so that makes it hard for them to claim victory (particularly, to their domestic constituents) when a deal that is actually in your favor is reached makes it politically difficult for them to compromise. And this is true for authoritarian regimes as well as democratic ones; the absence of electoral accountability doesn't mean that domestic support is irrelevant (it just means opposition lacks a nonviolent safety valve), and even in regimes that tightly control public information, influential elites which the leadership wants to keep in line will generally be aware of public information from outside of regime channels.
briandear 7y ago
> Unfortunately, it doesn't work quite the same way in international diplomacy. However, the "traditional" way doesn't work either. Case in point: EU puts tariffs on a wide variety of US goods -- tariffs that have been in effect for decades. The EU, even before Trump, charged a 10% tariff on US cars, while the US only charged a 2.5% tariff on European cars. The EU taxed US apples at 17%, grapes at 20%. Clothing, and all sort of other products are and were heavily taxed. California and other American wines are taxed at double the rate of EU wines entering the United States. "Trump invented tariffs" is the the current media narrative, but it's not even close to being true. The EU taxes the hell of US goods. Try to ship a spare part of a child's stroller from the US. I paid a $40 tax for a part that cost me $25. Duties, tariffs and other taxes are oppressive and the US should fight back. If the EU doesn't want tariffs -- they can eliminate the taxes they've historically put on US products. But they only complain now because Trump is trying to play their own protectionist game. So Trumps's "real estate" approach is a pretty novel one -- and one that has actually forced the EU to negotiate in good faith, unlike the decades were US products were taxed unfairly. The EU has tariffs on almost everything -- I'm not sure why Trump is the bad guy in a trade war here. Trump is just the first president to actually stand up to the EU when it comes to trade. Why the hell the EU can get away with decades of tariffs and doing things like subsidizing Airbus illegally[1] is beyond me. Trump is the "bad guy" because he actually cares about American interests before those of the EU? How crazy. The EU member leaders are welcome to look after the best interests of their countries as well. There's nothing radical about that. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44120525 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44120525
- pravda 7y ago
  >Try to ship a spare part of a child's stroller from the US. I paid a $40 tax for a part that cost me $25. Duties, tariffs and other taxes are oppressive and the US should fight back The US should fight back? Shouldn't EU consumers fight back against the actions of their government? If a European country has a 10% tariff on American-made autos, who is the victim? The European auto buyer. Who is the beneficiary? The stockholder of the European auto manufacturer.
  - prepend 7y ago

skxnslwl 7y ago

Not sure if this is the case with the postal union, but many multilateral organizations are structured one-vote-per-country and the Chinese side is able, by dint of its greater leverage with corrupt small governments, to get a disproportionate amount of influence. (The obvious caveats apply: no idea if this applies in this particular instance; this doesn't mean that withdrawing from international agreements is always the appropriate step for the US to take; other voting systems have their own problems)

markdown 7y ago
> by dint of its greater leverage with corrupt small governments Because any nation that isn't on your side is corrupt, right?
- krapht 7y ago
  > Because any nation that isn't on your side is corrupt, right? Do you have experience living in countries where you need to bribe everyone everywhere to get anything done? You're missing the point, and I doubt you're speaking from any sort of authority when you say these decisions are not made via shady backroom deals.
  - markdown 7y ago
    > Do you have experience living in countries where you need to bribe everyone everywhere to get anything done? Yup, two years in India over a decade ago when it was much worse than it is now. At the end of the day, a country will ally with or back the country from which they can extract the maximum benefit. Game theory applies. Many Pacific Island countries (many of the tiny countries you allude to) have benefited greatly from switching allegiance to China. In contrast, the US has much bigger fish to fry (billions in aid to Israel supposedly for mid-east stability) and paid these tiny nations no attention whatsoever over the past few decades. > Do you have experience living in countries where you need to bribe everyone everywhere to get anything done? I doubt you're speaking from any sort of authority when you say these decisions are not made via shady backroom deals. Do you mean like the US, where unlike anywhere else in the world, bribery (cunningly called lobbying) is both completely legal and publicly accepted?

DeonPenny 7y ago

They just like other situation with china other countries are afraid of their wrath