6 ms·

If flipping the table over never produces a net positive result, it never becomes an acceptable action. I'm having trouble imagining what positive result could

If flipping the table over never produces a net positive result, it never becomes an acceptable action. I'm having trouble imagining what positive result could come out of this that outweighs the downside of fracturing the global postal system.

chipperyman573 7y ago
You could make the argument that China, who refused to negotiate with the US, was the party that fractured the global postal system as they forced the US to take such drastic action. What other options did the US have? They've already tried work it out amicably.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  > You could make the argument that China, who refused to negotiate with the US, was the party that fractured the global postal system as they forced the US to take such drastic action. We're the most powerful nation in the world, not a toddler. "He made me do it!" isn't an argument for adults. We're responsible for our own actions. China may have made a bad decision, but that doesn't give the US a pass for making an even worse decision.
  - chipperyman573 7y ago
    Why would the US not look out for its own best interests? China and the US were in a deal where the only way for the US to be in a favorable (or even just not-terrible) position was to re-negotiate a deal that was made almost 50 years ago when the world was significantly different geopolitically, even more so with regards to China. China refused to negotiate, believing that the US would never pull out and that they had all the leverage. What other option does the US have? Keep subsidizing packages for their main economic rival? Sit back and do nothing while China continues to benefit? Yeah, china "made the US do it" in the same way that a car dealership "makes you not by a car" when they don't give you the deal you wanted, but I don't really see why that means the dealership is doing anything wrong.
    - PhasmaFelis 7y ago
      How terrible was it exactly? What would be the consequences of it continuing, and what are the consequences of its ending? I'm not familiar with it personally, but an adult sometimes has to say "No, it's not fair, but it's not that big a deal, and the damage caused by throwing a tantrum over it isn't worth the sop to my pride."
      - chipperyman573 7y ago
        There's an entire section in the article about how bad it is for the US. One excerpt: "According to the Postal Regulatory Commission, the independent agency that rules on postal rate proposals, the loss to USPS attributable to terminal dues reached $134.5 million in fiscal year 2016 and $170 million in fiscal year 2017" Spending over $170 million a year (and rising, especially with the massive yoy increases of packages shipped from China) and making it easier for your largest (by far) economic rival to sell in your country than companies that are established in your country is pretty terrible, I would argue.
        PhasmaFelis 7y ago
        You didn't answer the other question, which is just as important. What are the consequences of it ending? Not just to China, but to the US and the world? The article doesn't address that except to say "Beijing may retaliate" and "USPS wants to establish agreements with foreign posts." You can't weigh two options if you only know the weight of one of them.
        chipperyman573 7y ago
        You could make the same argument about China. Why shouldn't they just agree to no longer be subsidized in exchange for keeping the US in the trade agreement? Either the price different isn't a huge deal, and China should just pay the cost of the shipments, or the price is a big enough deal that China finds this extremely unfavorable, and "the US should just keep doing it because it's not a big deal" no longer applies.
EpicEng 7y ago
Well, at a minimum it makes goods from China more expensive and drop shipping from China no longer makes sense for many products. If you aren't getting those products from China, they'll come from somewhere else.
- phy6 7y ago
  Correct. Vietnam is already accusing China of exporting things claimed to have been made in Vietnam. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9281123/china-mislabelling-products-made-in-vietnam-avoid-trump-tariffs/ https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9281123/china-mislabelling-pro...
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  > Well, at a minimum it makes goods from China more expensive and drop shipping from China no longer makes sense for many products. Well, given the number of products we buy from China, this sounds like it's going to make things more expensive for US Citizens. > If you aren't getting those products from China, they'll come from somewhere else. ...for a higher price, probably, which we will pay.
  - matthewowen 7y ago
    Very few items bought from China come via the postal system: they're primarily moved by freight to USA fulfillment centers and then shipped domestically when orders come in. So no, it won't make things more expensive for most consumers. There's a high likelihood that you've never received anything from China by mail.
    - EpicEng 7y ago
      That is just absolutely not true. First, go ahead and read the article. Next, order a few $1 items from AliExpress.
      - matthewowen 7y ago
        I have ordered things from aliexpress. I've ordered orders of magnitude more stuff from Amazon. That's my point. A number doesn't have to be zero to be practically insignificant.
DuskStar 7y ago
Let's imagine a game with the following payoff matrix: C D C (5, 5) (1, 7) D (7, 1) (0, 0) If your opponent is defecting, you get one point and they get seven. If you defect on top of this, you both get zero - but everyone cooperating gives you both five points. Credibly threatening to defect, even though defection harms you, is the only way to convince your opponent to move to cooperation from defection. Sometimes credibly threatening to perform an action involves actually following through with the threat.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  Gosh, "Argument from imaginary payoff matrix" is a new logical fallacy I haven't seen before. Let's stick to looking at the situation in front of us instead of imagining ones that don't exist.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    Well, you were wondering how flipping the table could ever be the right choice. I tried to show a toy situation in which that would be the case. It may or may not map to the situation here, but IMO that's irrelevant. Personally, I think it maps pretty well.
    - kerkeslager 7y ago
      > Well, you were wondering how flipping the table could ever be the right choice. No, I sure wasn't. Obviously there are situations where flipping the table is the right choice. This probably isn't one of those situations.
      - ehvatum 7y ago
        I disagree. According to the article, the USPS is subsidizing Chinese imports to the tune of approximately $150,000,000 per year. We have exhausted all other practical approaches to resolving this outrage. China will not budge unless they know they have to. That's the tie-in with prisoner's dilemma, you see? Only by making the other party aware that negative consequences are dire, certain, and soon can an equitable outcome for both parties be achieved. I would note that China has already leveraged government borrowing power to the hilt in order to artificially support their stock market prices, leaving them almost no room the maneuver. You argue that this it is childish for us to force the issue. No. Wrong. It's game theory. Do you want a good outcome?

chipperyman573 7y ago

You could make the argument that China, who refused to negotiate with the US, was the party that fractured the global postal system as they forced the US to take such drastic action. What other options did the US have? They've already tried work it out amicably.

kerkeslager 7y ago
> You could make the argument that China, who refused to negotiate with the US, was the party that fractured the global postal system as they forced the US to take such drastic action. We're the most powerful nation in the world, not a toddler. "He made me do it!" isn't an argument for adults. We're responsible for our own actions. China may have made a bad decision, but that doesn't give the US a pass for making an even worse decision.
- chipperyman573 7y ago
  Why would the US not look out for its own best interests? China and the US were in a deal where the only way for the US to be in a favorable (or even just not-terrible) position was to re-negotiate a deal that was made almost 50 years ago when the world was significantly different geopolitically, even more so with regards to China. China refused to negotiate, believing that the US would never pull out and that they had all the leverage. What other option does the US have? Keep subsidizing packages for their main economic rival? Sit back and do nothing while China continues to benefit? Yeah, china "made the US do it" in the same way that a car dealership "makes you not by a car" when they don't give you the deal you wanted, but I don't really see why that means the dealership is doing anything wrong.
  - PhasmaFelis 7y ago
    How terrible was it exactly? What would be the consequences of it continuing, and what are the consequences of its ending? I'm not familiar with it personally, but an adult sometimes has to say "No, it's not fair, but it's not that big a deal, and the damage caused by throwing a tantrum over it isn't worth the sop to my pride."
    - chipperyman573 7y ago
      There's an entire section in the article about how bad it is for the US. One excerpt: "According to the Postal Regulatory Commission, the independent agency that rules on postal rate proposals, the loss to USPS attributable to terminal dues reached $134.5 million in fiscal year 2016 and $170 million in fiscal year 2017" Spending over $170 million a year (and rising, especially with the massive yoy increases of packages shipped from China) and making it easier for your largest (by far) economic rival to sell in your country than companies that are established in your country is pretty terrible, I would argue.
      - PhasmaFelis 7y ago
        You didn't answer the other question, which is just as important. What are the consequences of it ending? Not just to China, but to the US and the world? The article doesn't address that except to say "Beijing may retaliate" and "USPS wants to establish agreements with foreign posts." You can't weigh two options if you only know the weight of one of them.
        chipperyman573 7y ago
        You could make the same argument about China. Why shouldn't they just agree to no longer be subsidized in exchange for keeping the US in the trade agreement? Either the price different isn't a huge deal, and China should just pay the cost of the shipments, or the price is a big enough deal that China finds this extremely unfavorable, and "the US should just keep doing it because it's not a big deal" no longer applies.

EpicEng 7y ago

Well, at a minimum it makes goods from China more expensive and drop shipping from China no longer makes sense for many products. If you aren't getting those products from China, they'll come from somewhere else.

phy6 7y ago
Correct. Vietnam is already accusing China of exporting things claimed to have been made in Vietnam. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9281123/china-mislabelling-products-made-in-vietnam-avoid-trump-tariffs/ https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9281123/china-mislabelling-pro...
kerkeslager 7y ago
> Well, at a minimum it makes goods from China more expensive and drop shipping from China no longer makes sense for many products. Well, given the number of products we buy from China, this sounds like it's going to make things more expensive for US Citizens. > If you aren't getting those products from China, they'll come from somewhere else. ...for a higher price, probably, which we will pay.
- matthewowen 7y ago
  Very few items bought from China come via the postal system: they're primarily moved by freight to USA fulfillment centers and then shipped domestically when orders come in. So no, it won't make things more expensive for most consumers. There's a high likelihood that you've never received anything from China by mail.
  - EpicEng 7y ago
    That is just absolutely not true. First, go ahead and read the article. Next, order a few $1 items from AliExpress.
    - matthewowen 7y ago
      I have ordered things from aliexpress. I've ordered orders of magnitude more stuff from Amazon. That's my point. A number doesn't have to be zero to be practically insignificant.

DuskStar 7y ago

Let's imagine a game with the following payoff matrix: C D C (5, 5) (1, 7) D (7, 1) (0, 0) If your opponent is defecting, you get one point and they get seven. If you defect on top of this, you both get zero - but everyone cooperating gives you both five points. Credibly threatening to defect, even though defection harms you, is the only way to convince your opponent to move to cooperation from defection. Sometimes credibly threatening to perform an action involves actually following through with the threat.

kerkeslager 7y ago
Gosh, "Argument from imaginary payoff matrix" is a new logical fallacy I haven't seen before. Let's stick to looking at the situation in front of us instead of imagining ones that don't exist.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  Well, you were wondering how flipping the table could ever be the right choice. I tried to show a toy situation in which that would be the case. It may or may not map to the situation here, but IMO that's irrelevant. Personally, I think it maps pretty well.
  - kerkeslager 7y ago
    > Well, you were wondering how flipping the table could ever be the right choice. No, I sure wasn't. Obviously there are situations where flipping the table is the right choice. This probably isn't one of those situations.
    - ehvatum 7y ago
      I disagree. According to the article, the USPS is subsidizing Chinese imports to the tune of approximately $150,000,000 per year. We have exhausted all other practical approaches to resolving this outrage. China will not budge unless they know they have to. That's the tie-in with prisoner's dilemma, you see? Only by making the other party aware that negative consequences are dire, certain, and soon can an equitable outcome for both parties be achieved. I would note that China has already leveraged government borrowing power to the hilt in order to artificially support their stock market prices, leaving them almost no room the maneuver. You argue that this it is childish for us to force the issue. No. Wrong. It's game theory. Do you want a good outcome?