3 ms·

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 tak

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.
        PhasmaFelis 7y ago
        I haven't even made a firm argument yet. I'm trying to find out what's actually in the balance so I can make an informed decision. It may well be that there's no major downside for the US, or for anyone except China. If you can show me evidence of that, I'd love to see it! But this administration has a history of rash, unconsidered actions based on nothing more than pride, so I don't think it's unreasonable to want to see that evidence before I take them at their word.
  - kerkeslager 7y ago
    > Why would the US not look out for its own best interests? Of course the US should look out for its own best interests. It is far from clear that leaving the global postal union is in our best interests, however. > China refused to negotiate, believing that the US would never pull out and that they had all the leverage. Given US dependency on Chinese products, I don't think we can clearly say that China doesn't have all the leverage. > Keep subsidizing packages for their main economic rival? Sit back and do nothing while China continues to benefit? Keep in mind that subsidizing packages from China is also a subsidy to US consumers of Chinese goods. Americans benefit from this too. And leaving the global postal union affects a lot more than just our relations with China. So yes, maybe continuing to subsidize packages from our main economic rival is better than leaving the global postal union. I don't have all the facts here, so I am not sure I know what's right, but I have enough facts to see that only looking at how fair or unfair things are doesn't give you the whole picture.
    - shkkmo 7y ago
      With an obviously unfair trade agreement that has facilitated numerous well documented frauds and abuses, the obligation rests with those who claim that staying is beneficial to provide evidence to that effect. The only downside you have mentioned explicitly is that "US customers may pay more for shipping" is clearly false. The money for that subsidy has to come from somewhere and it has been coming from US customers paying more for domestic shipping.

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.
        PhasmaFelis 7y ago
        I haven't even made a firm argument yet. I'm trying to find out what's actually in the balance so I can make an informed decision. It may well be that there's no major downside for the US, or for anyone except China. If you can show me evidence of that, I'd love to see it! But this administration has a history of rash, unconsidered actions based on nothing more than pride, so I don't think it's unreasonable to want to see that evidence before I take them at their word.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  > Why would the US not look out for its own best interests? Of course the US should look out for its own best interests. It is far from clear that leaving the global postal union is in our best interests, however. > China refused to negotiate, believing that the US would never pull out and that they had all the leverage. Given US dependency on Chinese products, I don't think we can clearly say that China doesn't have all the leverage. > Keep subsidizing packages for their main economic rival? Sit back and do nothing while China continues to benefit? Keep in mind that subsidizing packages from China is also a subsidy to US consumers of Chinese goods. Americans benefit from this too. And leaving the global postal union affects a lot more than just our relations with China. So yes, maybe continuing to subsidize packages from our main economic rival is better than leaving the global postal union. I don't have all the facts here, so I am not sure I know what's right, but I have enough facts to see that only looking at how fair or unfair things are doesn't give you the whole picture.
  - shkkmo 7y ago
    With an obviously unfair trade agreement that has facilitated numerous well documented frauds and abuses, the obligation rests with those who claim that staying is beneficial to provide evidence to that effect. The only downside you have mentioned explicitly is that "US customers may pay more for shipping" is clearly false. The money for that subsidy has to come from somewhere and it has been coming from US customers paying more for domestic shipping.