3 ms·

Easy solution: Raise postage, make china pay for it, or stop delivering to China.

arcticbull 6y ago
Rates are determined by the United Nations Universal Postal Union. The US was threatening to withdraw over this last year, but settled on the ability to raise rates on China starting next month. [1] This is covered in the article, too. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/business/universal-postal-union-withdraw.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/business/universal-postal...
- ed25519FUUU 6y ago
  It’s amazing how we had to threaten the UN to get them to end this OBVIOUSLY uncompetitive practice. Why should US company tax dollars go to subsidize the cost of a foreign competitor? And we’re not talking about helping our a 3rd world country here, we’re taking about our largest rival for world power. The UN being unwilling to separate China from the rest of the lot until being threatened says enough.
  - nelaboras 6y ago
    No, this was by design. The US and Europe wanted to encourage trade by developing countries, so built in cheaper rates for them. This also still makes sense for Rwanda or Nepal, less so for China which simply developed at an unexpected speed and scale. Obviously a mistake not to build any kind of automatic adjustment in...
    - jariel 6y ago
      "No, this was by design" No, it was not 'designed' to fund Chinese competition and outsource massive numbers of manufacturing jobs over there. This was a side-effect of the program gone obviously and terribly awry. The original program is ancient and really was a matter of national courtesy in delivering other nation's international mail. EDIT, FYI: "The Treaty of Bern was signed on October 9, 1874, establishing what was then known as the General Postal Union. The treaty provided that: There should be a uniform flat rate to mail a letter anywhere in the world Postal authorities should give equal treatment to foreign and domestic mail Each country should retain all money it has collected for international postage." The current practice of giving China free postage was established 150 years ago, not in some modern trade strategy, and it was a means of simplifying postage and not having to worry about balancing accounts (i.e. host nation keeps the fee). This kind of economic reciprocity is basically unheard of in anything else, but it makes sense for a strategic industry that's not necessarily very expensive. For shipping goods, obviously, it makes no sense. I challenge anyone to explain how an agreement made in 1874 for critical international communications, that has unexpectedly given China a massive trade advantage in developing industries, was part of any plan. The argument that the terms may have been advanced due to helping places like Africa with trade just don't hold in the current context. The US government subsidisation of Chinese e-commerce doesn't really make any sense. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Postal_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Postal_Union
      - ketzu 6y ago
        You are ignoring that the Union was established 150 years ago, but the agreement is changing over time. And like every other country, the US is trying to modify it in a way it sees profitable for themselves at the time. According to your wikipedia article in 2010 the US blocked increases because they were on the winning end of the treaty. But as unforseen changes actually made them lose money on the deal, it was suddenly unfair and out of date. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Postal_Union#Shifting_balances_and_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Postal_Union#Shiftin...
        jariel 6y ago
        I'm not ignoring that it changes over time. The principle that 'nations pay for local delivery for free' as a matter of convenience, was established 150 years ago. That basic principle remains today. If that agreement were not made an eternity ago, nobody would even think to suggest it today - because it doesn't make sense. You are missing the point when you're referring to 'making or losing money' on the deal. It's not so much about the cost of regular shipping - it's about the subsidisation of entire competitive industries. The rise of e-Commerce has changed everything related to shipping, quite fundamentally. A US subsidy on their own imports to China, even a smaller one, can make quite a substantial change in commercial trends. The treaty was not designed to do that, nobody was thinking in those terms, at that scale. Not even 25 years ago did we think individuals were going to be buying little parcels from China on an individual basis. The treaty now has to live in the context of e-Commerce and it should essentially be abolished for packages, because it simply does not make sense. In an era before computers, it might have made sense to honour each others letters. But now there's no reason why the sender just can't pay appropriate rates for shipping. Edit: I should add - there isn't a single argument presented by anyone on the entire thread as to why one nation would arbitrarily deliver another nations physical packages 'for free' or on reciprocal basis. This is because there is no reason to support it in 2020. It exists for historical reasons, bureaucratic and political momentum.
bsder 6y ago
Postal service is much like internet transit, normally you are happy to deliver other people's stuff as long as they deliver yours. This breaks down when one of the parties starts sending a lot more than they receive.
- Animats 6y ago
  Exactly. First-class letter mail used to dominate the postal system, and it tends to have about equal traffic in each direction. So the UPU wasn't that concerned about settlements. Until 1969, there weren't any settlements; countries "peered" at no charge, like the Internet. Then came "terminal dues", the charges the delivering postal system charges the originating postal system.[1] Also, there's a price break for "underdeveloped countries", and 20 years ago, at the last round of rate setting, China qualified. Despite all the noise from the Trump administration back in 2018, 2020 was the next scheduled year for updating terminal dues. Here we are in 2020, and there's a new terminal dues agreement, as scheduled. [1] http://www.upu.int/en/activities/terminal-dues-and-transit-charges/about-terminal-dues-and-transit-charges.html http://www.upu.int/en/activities/terminal-dues-and-transit-c...

Rates are determined by the United Nations Universal Postal Union. The US was threatening to withdraw over this last year, but settled on the ability to raise rates on China starting next month. [1] This is covered in the article, too. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/business/universal-postal-union-withdraw.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/business/universal-postal...

ed25519FUUU 6y ago
It’s amazing how we had to threaten the UN to get them to end this OBVIOUSLY uncompetitive practice. Why should US company tax dollars go to subsidize the cost of a foreign competitor? And we’re not talking about helping our a 3rd world country here, we’re taking about our largest rival for world power. The UN being unwilling to separate China from the rest of the lot until being threatened says enough.
- nelaboras 6y ago
  No, this was by design. The US and Europe wanted to encourage trade by developing countries, so built in cheaper rates for them. This also still makes sense for Rwanda or Nepal, less so for China which simply developed at an unexpected speed and scale. Obviously a mistake not to build any kind of automatic adjustment in...
  - jariel 6y ago
    "No, this was by design" No, it was not 'designed' to fund Chinese competition and outsource massive numbers of manufacturing jobs over there. This was a side-effect of the program gone obviously and terribly awry. The original program is ancient and really was a matter of national courtesy in delivering other nation's international mail. EDIT, FYI: "The Treaty of Bern was signed on October 9, 1874, establishing what was then known as the General Postal Union. The treaty provided that: There should be a uniform flat rate to mail a letter anywhere in the world Postal authorities should give equal treatment to foreign and domestic mail Each country should retain all money it has collected for international postage." The current practice of giving China free postage was established 150 years ago, not in some modern trade strategy, and it was a means of simplifying postage and not having to worry about balancing accounts (i.e. host nation keeps the fee). This kind of economic reciprocity is basically unheard of in anything else, but it makes sense for a strategic industry that's not necessarily very expensive. For shipping goods, obviously, it makes no sense. I challenge anyone to explain how an agreement made in 1874 for critical international communications, that has unexpectedly given China a massive trade advantage in developing industries, was part of any plan. The argument that the terms may have been advanced due to helping places like Africa with trade just don't hold in the current context. The US government subsidisation of Chinese e-commerce doesn't really make any sense. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Postal_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Postal_Union
    - ketzu 6y ago
      You are ignoring that the Union was established 150 years ago, but the agreement is changing over time. And like every other country, the US is trying to modify it in a way it sees profitable for themselves at the time. According to your wikipedia article in 2010 the US blocked increases because they were on the winning end of the treaty. But as unforseen changes actually made them lose money on the deal, it was suddenly unfair and out of date. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Postal_Union#Shifting_balances_and_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Postal_Union#Shiftin...
      - jariel 6y ago
        I'm not ignoring that it changes over time. The principle that 'nations pay for local delivery for free' as a matter of convenience, was established 150 years ago. That basic principle remains today. If that agreement were not made an eternity ago, nobody would even think to suggest it today - because it doesn't make sense. You are missing the point when you're referring to 'making or losing money' on the deal. It's not so much about the cost of regular shipping - it's about the subsidisation of entire competitive industries. The rise of e-Commerce has changed everything related to shipping, quite fundamentally. A US subsidy on their own imports to China, even a smaller one, can make quite a substantial change in commercial trends. The treaty was not designed to do that, nobody was thinking in those terms, at that scale. Not even 25 years ago did we think individuals were going to be buying little parcels from China on an individual basis. The treaty now has to live in the context of e-Commerce and it should essentially be abolished for packages, because it simply does not make sense. In an era before computers, it might have made sense to honour each others letters. But now there's no reason why the sender just can't pay appropriate rates for shipping. Edit: I should add - there isn't a single argument presented by anyone on the entire thread as to why one nation would arbitrarily deliver another nations physical packages 'for free' or on reciprocal basis. This is because there is no reason to support it in 2020. It exists for historical reasons, bureaucratic and political momentum.

bsder 6y ago

Postal service is much like internet transit, normally you are happy to deliver other people's stuff as long as they deliver yours. This breaks down when one of the parties starts sending a lot more than they receive.

Animats 6y ago
Exactly. First-class letter mail used to dominate the postal system, and it tends to have about equal traffic in each direction. So the UPU wasn't that concerned about settlements. Until 1969, there weren't any settlements; countries "peered" at no charge, like the Internet. Then came "terminal dues", the charges the delivering postal system charges the originating postal system.[1] Also, there's a price break for "underdeveloped countries", and 20 years ago, at the last round of rate setting, China qualified. Despite all the noise from the Trump administration back in 2018, 2020 was the next scheduled year for updating terminal dues. Here we are in 2020, and there's a new terminal dues agreement, as scheduled. [1] http://www.upu.int/en/activities/terminal-dues-and-transit-charges/about-terminal-dues-and-transit-charges.html http://www.upu.int/en/activities/terminal-dues-and-transit-c...