8 ms·

The trouble is that we are subsidizing the shipment of items from China. It’s sickening when I have to pay $5 to send something within the US, yet the same item

The trouble is that we are subsidizing the shipment of items from China. It’s sickening when I have to pay $5 to send something within the US, yet the same item would cost $.50 from China. You could buy something for $1 from dx.com- shipping included! Crazy. So while I agree with you that we don’t necessarily need a profit motive at the usps, at the same time the taxpayers don’t need to subsidize cheap crap from China.

Barrin92 6y ago
I guess the taxpayers are also the people who buy stuff from China so by and large they're just subsidizing themselves? Given how ubiquitous ordering stuff from China is these days I'm not really sure the first impression of this being some good deal is accurate. In fact subsidizing transport to a degree might probably have a progressive effect because low wage earners are more likely to order cheaper foreign goods.
- lenkite 6y ago
  There were a truckload of articles on this published over the last several years, even during the Obama administration, on how this "international China shipping" being cheaper than "domestic shipping" destroyed small businesses and was also responsible for hundreds (likely thousands) of American deaths thanks to cheap fentayl shipments. This was the most nonsensical self-destructive American policy that strangely never caught much mainstream media attention.
  - xzel 6y ago
    With the potency to weight ratio Fentanyl has, do you really think the shipping being slightly more expensive will make it cost prohibitive? "A kilogram of heroin is purchased for approximately $6,000 and sold for appropriately $80,000." [1] Paying a few more dollars for shipping, which would be the case, doesn't make a dent in profitability. 1. https://www.affirmhealth.com/blog/word-on-the-street-fentanyl https://www.affirmhealth.com/blog/word-on-the-street-fentany...
    - lenkite 6y ago
      I am truly disappointed at the downvotes and the complete lack of research done by down-voters. The answer to your question is "Yes" not because of cost prohibition - but because most fentayl imports are less than 700 grams - which get lost in the massive flood of UPS e-Packet shipments and thus near impossible to inspect. I beg you to carry out your own research before expressing such disbelief. Please read this briefing by the US trade commission https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/executive_briefings/ebot_george_serletis_fentanyl_from_china_pdf.pdf https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/executive_briefings/e... "The illicit trade follows the standard e-commerce model of small-scale shipments and B2C and B2B distribution channels. The trade is SME-focused, with small-scale Chinese suppliers primarily exporting to individuals and small independent U.S. criminal networks.China was the source of 97 percent of inbound shipments of high-purity fentanyl during 2016 and 2017" "Given the high purity of Chinese fentanyl, most illicit imports are less than 700 grams (1.5 lbs.) per shipment. "
      - thaumasiotes 6y ago
        > I am truly disappointed at at the downvotes and the complete lack of research done by down-voters. The answer to your question is "Yes" not because of cost prohibition - but because most fentayl imports are less than 700 grams - which get lost in the massive flood of UPS e-Packet shipments and thus near impossible to inspect. So what? 100 grams would be bought, by the numbers above, for $600 and sold for $8,000. If shipping cost $200, no one would care. That would add $2,000 in shipping costs to the full kilogram, but, again, no one would care. It's just not significant. Do you have an argument to advance that isn't ludicrous on its face?
        lenkite 6y ago
        It is not a matter of the shipping cost. Can you please state which statement do you find ludicrous ? 1. Chinese fentayl shipments do not need to have high weight due to purity. Mentioned explicitly in the trade commission report linked above. 2. Due to 1), it is convenient to leverage e-packet shipment as inspection of massive volume of e-packet shipments is near impossible. 3. Small-scale US businesses were adversely affected by e-packet rates https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/10/trump-changes-terminal-dues-and-epacket-rates/573337/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/10/trump...
- arcticfox 6y ago
  I think the point is that part of the reason the goods are cheaper foreign is because they can't be made here at all, when shipping is 5x more expensive than importing from China.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    according to statista[1], the average weight of cross-border packages is about 1 lbs or so, so according to that table shipping from China would be about 1$ cheaper. As the article itself states "You can see from the above anything under 4 ounces is actually cheaper to ship from China. From 4 ounces to 8 ounces the rates are pretty comparable. Once you start hitting about 2 lbs, the prices from shipping within the U.S. start to get comparatively cheaper and cheaper than shipping from within China." I seriously doubt this was ever an existential in the sense of the shipping cost itself destroying a business. China is simply able to produce cheaper things because they have lower labour cost and so on, and that is actually good for American consumers. It's simply free trade. If anything I see a much bigger threat in the ability of the US to raise the prices, because given the current administration it may be used as a protectionist tool. [1]https://www.statista.com/statistics/974065/cross-border-delivery-package-weight-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/974065/cross-border-deli...
    - queuep 6y ago
      > It's simply free trade. How can it possibly be free trade if one side is subsidized and one side is not. This is a good thing, I hope same thing will happen in Europe, if it haven't already. The law/agreement in europe is to help people send hand written letters across the globe, and to help people from poor regions send letters ro the more developed regions on earth. This was the case back then, now, the same agreement is used so that you can send stuff worldwide without any fee. That is NOT free trade. https://www.svenskhandel.se/contentassets/5db334c2740b4b7ebec178fb96f94b8e/nordic-commerce-sector-submission-regarding-distortion-of-competition-from-3rd-country-online-platforms-and-terminal-dues-002.pdf https://www.svenskhandel.se/contentassets/5db334c2740b4b7ebe...
      - 6y ago
- pochamago 6y ago
  It's basically a reverse tarriff, placing a market barrier on your own industries for no good reason.
- roenxi 6y ago
  If people had to make an explicit choice between ($1 shipping cost and $2 taxes) vs ($2 shipping cost and $0 taxes) they'd choose the unsubsidised option. "they're just subsidizing themselves" -> they are spending money that they wouldn't choose to spend if they had fine grained control over the taxes they paid.
  - Broken_Hippo 6y ago
    For lots of things, though, that really isn't the clear cut choice. You pay health insurance so you don't have to pay the full cost later on. And it could easily be that the shipping cost + taxes generally means that the system stays afloat. And besides, if you tax correctly, it wouldn't be the same rate for everyone (income taxes should be higher for those making more, for example) nor would it be more than the flat shipping costs so long as the tax money actually went to the postal service. In both cases, are the employees getting paid fair wages? Does the tax mean I'm not getting charged for receiving packages? Are there hidden costs to the lower amount?
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      > You pay health insurance so you don't have to pay the full cost later on. When you buy health insurance you pay more than the expected value of the full cost, both as a result of the cost of providing the insurance and the over-consumption as a result of insurance making patients price insensitive. The reason you buy insurance is in case your medical bills are more than average and you can't afford them. For the average person the insurance is a net loss but the cost savings of not having it aren't worth the risk. > And it could easily be that the shipping cost + taxes generally means that the system stays afloat. If the system is worth more than it costs then it will be able to charge prices that allow it to stay afloat. We generally don't need systems that cost more than they're worth. > And besides, if you tax correctly, it wouldn't be the same rate for everyone (income taxes should be higher for those making more, for example) nor would it be more than the flat shipping costs so long as the tax money actually went to the postal service. Everybody always wants somebody else to pay for it. But it's the people in the middle and not at the top who actually pay for stuff, because they're the only ones numerous enough to do it. > In both cases, are the employees getting paid fair wages? That sounds like a question for the employees and not the customers. Naturally if they're getting paid below market rates they should consider seeking other employment. > Does the tax mean I'm not getting charged for receiving packages? You can already get charged for receiving packages. It's called COD. Nobody really uses it because it's much more convenient to charge up front than have the carrier try to collect payment from the recipient.
- unishark 6y ago
  Both the seller and the buyer benefits from the subsidy, while only the taxpayer pays for it. So the net benefit is to the chinese seller and net loss is to the taxpayers, which only partly mitigated if they are buyers too.
  - dx034 6y ago
    The environment suffers though. Shipping it in bulk to the US and from there to the customer is more efficient and allows for returns to be reused, creating less waste.
    - megous 6y ago
      I don't think individual Chinese are rafting your goods individually over the pond.
  - drdec 6y ago
    FYI, the US Post Office is an independent agency with its own budget. It does not receive taxpayer money. So really what was happening is that other people or companies sending mail or packages were subsidizing overseas mail and packages.
    - asciident 6y ago
      I would make the case that they do receive taxpayer money. They have a legal right and monopoly to show ads in your mailbox. Without that, they would not exist. Imagine if Facebook were legally allowed to drive by your house and play recordings of ads over a loudspeaker every morning. Facebook would pay the government for that privilege. The government is selling your attention daily (worth billions, if anyone company were to have the ability to charge for it the same way), and giving it to the post office for free.
- mcv 6y ago
  If you want cheaper products with lower shipment costs, why not subsidise them locally? Why pay to make buying abroad cheaper while making your local products more expensive?
  - megous 6y ago
    If you're creative, you can have free local shipping too, or just pay $2-4 to get shipped pretty much anything. It's just sligtly more expensive than standard aliexpress shipping, which is $1.5 or so. The major thing compared to local stuff is lack of VAT on cheap foregin goods. Noone locally can compete with that. Also most of the stuff I buy on Aliexpress (electronic components, SBCs, ...) simply isn't available locally, or is simply bought there and resold locally (because the manufacturer's main shop is Aliexpress).
econcon 6y ago
>The trouble is that we are subsidizing the shipment of items from China. I don't see any problem if taxpayer is the one is paying cheaper price as the end result. It's not like Chinese are charging full rate and sending for dirt cheap and booking mega profits like that. And if a student can order cheaper pen and paper from china or a mechanic can order cheaper nut bolts and screwdriver from china, what's the harm?
- lenkite 6y ago
  There is definitely a problem with subsidising the destruction of US small-scale businesses while favouring Chinese businesses and subsidising death of American citizens via fentayl. https://www.quora.com/Does-China-ePacket-hurt-American-business https://www.quora.com/Does-China-ePacket-hurt-American-busin... "COMBATTING THE OPIOID CRISIS: EXPLOITING VULNERABILITIES IN INTERNATIONAL MAIL" https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Combatting%20the%20Opioid%20Crisis%20-%20Exploiting%20Vulnerabilities%20in%20International%20Mail1.pdf https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Combatting%20the%... US Senate Staff Report: "Fentanyl Flows from China" https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Research/Fentanyl%20Flows%20from%20China.pdf https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Research/Fentanyl%2...
  - markdown 6y ago
    > subsidising death of American citizens via fentayl. LOL, do you really think people buy chinese fentanyl 'cos the shipping per gram is a few cents cheaper than it would be if they had to pay higher shipping rents?
    - lenkite 6y ago
      I made a terrible mistake by my short, snarky answers without citations because I mistakenly assumed that most people were already aware of this. But it seems that I was utterly wrong. (also I did not downvote you) Please read this report by the US trade commission. I can quote further citations if needed, but this one is a succinct briefing. https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/executive_briefings/ebot_george_serletis_fentanyl_from_china_pdf.pdf https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/executive_briefings/e... Please also read the United States Senate Sub-committee on Investigations Staff Report. https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Combatting%20the%20Opioid%20Crisis%20-%20Exploiting%20Vulnerabilities%20in%20International%20Mail1.pdf https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Combatting%20the%... "The preferred method of the international online (fentayl) sellers is Express Mail Service (“EMS”), a global delivery service for documents and merchandise contained in letters and package." Further reading in that report will show you how difficult it was to scan/inspect e-packet shipments due to immense volume.
asveikau 6y ago
But it's the mail. It simply arrives. If I am in some other country, I pay postage in that country, then that country gives it to USPS and says "your turn now". Are they going to send it back? Surely there can be negotiations between the two countries about how to split that cost paid overseas, but at the end of the day the mail comes in, what are we going to do, not deliver? If domestic mail is too expensive maybe let's address that.
- 411111111111111 6y ago
  Accept it in harbor, send a new notification that it can be fetched after paying a processing fee (which includes the price of three previous notification). It's not like that isn't already done all over the place. It's not like that would happen often. They'd quickly adapt and start charging more for sending, making it a non-issue most of the time
ddingus 6y ago
The Post Office works off Postage, not Tax dollars. Congress is responsible for the rates. Politics and likely donor interests are why the rates are this way.
- kazagistar 6y ago
  The rates are set because Republicans want to have the postal service die and be fully privatized, and thus make regulstions to sabatoge it on a regular basis.
pishpash 6y ago
If you achieved the same level of bulk processing it may not be $0.50, but it wouldn't be $5 either.
m000 6y ago
> It’s sickening when I have to pay $5 to send something within the US, yet the same item would cost $.50 from China. What's sickening about this? It's different quality of service. Your $5 package will be received in a few days. With $.50 shipping, your Chinese trinket will be delivered in a couple of months. > So while I agree with you that we don’t necessarily need a profit motive at the usps, at the same time the taxpayers don’t need to subsidize cheap crap from China. Too late for that. China is world's manufactory. Your stuff will be shipped from China one way or another. Given that, subsidising direct shipping from China is the reasonable thing to do. Otherwise you will be paying a 5-10x markup to middlemen for the exact same item.
- oh_sigh 6y ago
  All the slow Chinese mail gets put on a boat, and taken to say a port in LA where it is offloaded and then inserted into the US mail system. If I bring a package to that same spot in LA where the packages enter the system, why can't I choose a shipping option that costs something less than 50 cents to anywhere in the US? The system was illogical. Whether you want to say that US shipping is too expensive, or Chinese shipping to the US too inexpensive is unimportant.
  - m000 6y ago
    > why can't I choose a shipping option that costs something less than 50 cents to anywhere in the US? Not an American, but I believe there's a 2006 bill that prevents USPS from selling services below the cost. Learned about it in a John Oliver's video [1], mentioned somewhere else in this thread. I'd guess that Chinese epackets are part of an international agreement, so they are exempt. > The system was illogical. It would be illogical if USPS had flexible costs. But the USPS costs are more or less fixed. The mailman will go his round every day and will get his salary, even if he has little to deliver. So, you may as well have him deliver Chinese epackets, for whatever price the Chinese are willing to pay. And that's a good deal for the public. Otherwise the $1 trinket for China would be $6 (if Chinese had to pay full shipping), or $10 (if bought through a US-based reseller). [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoL8g0W9gAQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoL8g0W9gAQ
  - 6y ago
tedmcory77 6y ago
Not only that, but it creates an anti competitive environment where someone like me, who sells to US customers, subsidizes those shipments from other countries. That's the real kicker in this whole thing.

Barrin92 6y ago

I guess the taxpayers are also the people who buy stuff from China so by and large they're just subsidizing themselves? Given how ubiquitous ordering stuff from China is these days I'm not really sure the first impression of this being some good deal is accurate. In fact subsidizing transport to a degree might probably have a progressive effect because low wage earners are more likely to order cheaper foreign goods.

lenkite 6y ago
There were a truckload of articles on this published over the last several years, even during the Obama administration, on how this "international China shipping" being cheaper than "domestic shipping" destroyed small businesses and was also responsible for hundreds (likely thousands) of American deaths thanks to cheap fentayl shipments. This was the most nonsensical self-destructive American policy that strangely never caught much mainstream media attention.
- xzel 6y ago
  With the potency to weight ratio Fentanyl has, do you really think the shipping being slightly more expensive will make it cost prohibitive? "A kilogram of heroin is purchased for approximately $6,000 and sold for appropriately $80,000." [1] Paying a few more dollars for shipping, which would be the case, doesn't make a dent in profitability. 1. https://www.affirmhealth.com/blog/word-on-the-street-fentanyl https://www.affirmhealth.com/blog/word-on-the-street-fentany...
  - lenkite 6y ago
    I am truly disappointed at the downvotes and the complete lack of research done by down-voters. The answer to your question is "Yes" not because of cost prohibition - but because most fentayl imports are less than 700 grams - which get lost in the massive flood of UPS e-Packet shipments and thus near impossible to inspect. I beg you to carry out your own research before expressing such disbelief. Please read this briefing by the US trade commission https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/executive_briefings/ebot_george_serletis_fentanyl_from_china_pdf.pdf https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/executive_briefings/e... "The illicit trade follows the standard e-commerce model of small-scale shipments and B2C and B2B distribution channels. The trade is SME-focused, with small-scale Chinese suppliers primarily exporting to individuals and small independent U.S. criminal networks.China was the source of 97 percent of inbound shipments of high-purity fentanyl during 2016 and 2017" "Given the high purity of Chinese fentanyl, most illicit imports are less than 700 grams (1.5 lbs.) per shipment. "
    - thaumasiotes 6y ago
      > I am truly disappointed at at the downvotes and the complete lack of research done by down-voters. The answer to your question is "Yes" not because of cost prohibition - but because most fentayl imports are less than 700 grams - which get lost in the massive flood of UPS e-Packet shipments and thus near impossible to inspect. So what? 100 grams would be bought, by the numbers above, for $600 and sold for $8,000. If shipping cost $200, no one would care. That would add $2,000 in shipping costs to the full kilogram, but, again, no one would care. It's just not significant. Do you have an argument to advance that isn't ludicrous on its face?
      - lenkite 6y ago
        It is not a matter of the shipping cost. Can you please state which statement do you find ludicrous ? 1. Chinese fentayl shipments do not need to have high weight due to purity. Mentioned explicitly in the trade commission report linked above. 2. Due to 1), it is convenient to leverage e-packet shipment as inspection of massive volume of e-packet shipments is near impossible. 3. Small-scale US businesses were adversely affected by e-packet rates https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/10/trump-changes-terminal-dues-and-epacket-rates/573337/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/10/trump...
arcticfox 6y ago
I think the point is that part of the reason the goods are cheaper foreign is because they can't be made here at all, when shipping is 5x more expensive than importing from China.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  according to statista[1], the average weight of cross-border packages is about 1 lbs or so, so according to that table shipping from China would be about 1$ cheaper. As the article itself states "You can see from the above anything under 4 ounces is actually cheaper to ship from China. From 4 ounces to 8 ounces the rates are pretty comparable. Once you start hitting about 2 lbs, the prices from shipping within the U.S. start to get comparatively cheaper and cheaper than shipping from within China." I seriously doubt this was ever an existential in the sense of the shipping cost itself destroying a business. China is simply able to produce cheaper things because they have lower labour cost and so on, and that is actually good for American consumers. It's simply free trade. If anything I see a much bigger threat in the ability of the US to raise the prices, because given the current administration it may be used as a protectionist tool. [1]https://www.statista.com/statistics/974065/cross-border-delivery-package-weight-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/974065/cross-border-deli...
  - queuep 6y ago
    > It's simply free trade. How can it possibly be free trade if one side is subsidized and one side is not. This is a good thing, I hope same thing will happen in Europe, if it haven't already. The law/agreement in europe is to help people send hand written letters across the globe, and to help people from poor regions send letters ro the more developed regions on earth. This was the case back then, now, the same agreement is used so that you can send stuff worldwide without any fee. That is NOT free trade. https://www.svenskhandel.se/contentassets/5db334c2740b4b7ebec178fb96f94b8e/nordic-commerce-sector-submission-regarding-distortion-of-competition-from-3rd-country-online-platforms-and-terminal-dues-002.pdf https://www.svenskhandel.se/contentassets/5db334c2740b4b7ebe...
    - 6y ago
pochamago 6y ago
It's basically a reverse tarriff, placing a market barrier on your own industries for no good reason.
roenxi 6y ago
If people had to make an explicit choice between ($1 shipping cost and $2 taxes) vs ($2 shipping cost and $0 taxes) they'd choose the unsubsidised option. "they're just subsidizing themselves" -> they are spending money that they wouldn't choose to spend if they had fine grained control over the taxes they paid.
- Broken_Hippo 6y ago
  For lots of things, though, that really isn't the clear cut choice. You pay health insurance so you don't have to pay the full cost later on. And it could easily be that the shipping cost + taxes generally means that the system stays afloat. And besides, if you tax correctly, it wouldn't be the same rate for everyone (income taxes should be higher for those making more, for example) nor would it be more than the flat shipping costs so long as the tax money actually went to the postal service. In both cases, are the employees getting paid fair wages? Does the tax mean I'm not getting charged for receiving packages? Are there hidden costs to the lower amount?
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > You pay health insurance so you don't have to pay the full cost later on. When you buy health insurance you pay more than the expected value of the full cost, both as a result of the cost of providing the insurance and the over-consumption as a result of insurance making patients price insensitive. The reason you buy insurance is in case your medical bills are more than average and you can't afford them. For the average person the insurance is a net loss but the cost savings of not having it aren't worth the risk. > And it could easily be that the shipping cost + taxes generally means that the system stays afloat. If the system is worth more than it costs then it will be able to charge prices that allow it to stay afloat. We generally don't need systems that cost more than they're worth. > And besides, if you tax correctly, it wouldn't be the same rate for everyone (income taxes should be higher for those making more, for example) nor would it be more than the flat shipping costs so long as the tax money actually went to the postal service. Everybody always wants somebody else to pay for it. But it's the people in the middle and not at the top who actually pay for stuff, because they're the only ones numerous enough to do it. > In both cases, are the employees getting paid fair wages? That sounds like a question for the employees and not the customers. Naturally if they're getting paid below market rates they should consider seeking other employment. > Does the tax mean I'm not getting charged for receiving packages? You can already get charged for receiving packages. It's called COD. Nobody really uses it because it's much more convenient to charge up front than have the carrier try to collect payment from the recipient.
unishark 6y ago
Both the seller and the buyer benefits from the subsidy, while only the taxpayer pays for it. So the net benefit is to the chinese seller and net loss is to the taxpayers, which only partly mitigated if they are buyers too.
- dx034 6y ago
  The environment suffers though. Shipping it in bulk to the US and from there to the customer is more efficient and allows for returns to be reused, creating less waste.
  - megous 6y ago
    I don't think individual Chinese are rafting your goods individually over the pond.
- drdec 6y ago
  FYI, the US Post Office is an independent agency with its own budget. It does not receive taxpayer money. So really what was happening is that other people or companies sending mail or packages were subsidizing overseas mail and packages.
  - asciident 6y ago
    I would make the case that they do receive taxpayer money. They have a legal right and monopoly to show ads in your mailbox. Without that, they would not exist. Imagine if Facebook were legally allowed to drive by your house and play recordings of ads over a loudspeaker every morning. Facebook would pay the government for that privilege. The government is selling your attention daily (worth billions, if anyone company were to have the ability to charge for it the same way), and giving it to the post office for free.
mcv 6y ago
If you want cheaper products with lower shipment costs, why not subsidise them locally? Why pay to make buying abroad cheaper while making your local products more expensive?
- megous 6y ago
  If you're creative, you can have free local shipping too, or just pay $2-4 to get shipped pretty much anything. It's just sligtly more expensive than standard aliexpress shipping, which is $1.5 or so. The major thing compared to local stuff is lack of VAT on cheap foregin goods. Noone locally can compete with that. Also most of the stuff I buy on Aliexpress (electronic components, SBCs, ...) simply isn't available locally, or is simply bought there and resold locally (because the manufacturer's main shop is Aliexpress).

econcon 6y ago

>The trouble is that we are subsidizing the shipment of items from China. I don't see any problem if taxpayer is the one is paying cheaper price as the end result. It's not like Chinese are charging full rate and sending for dirt cheap and booking mega profits like that. And if a student can order cheaper pen and paper from china or a mechanic can order cheaper nut bolts and screwdriver from china, what's the harm?

lenkite 6y ago
There is definitely a problem with subsidising the destruction of US small-scale businesses while favouring Chinese businesses and subsidising death of American citizens via fentayl. https://www.quora.com/Does-China-ePacket-hurt-American-business https://www.quora.com/Does-China-ePacket-hurt-American-busin... "COMBATTING THE OPIOID CRISIS: EXPLOITING VULNERABILITIES IN INTERNATIONAL MAIL" https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Combatting%20the%20Opioid%20Crisis%20-%20Exploiting%20Vulnerabilities%20in%20International%20Mail1.pdf https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Combatting%20the%... US Senate Staff Report: "Fentanyl Flows from China" https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Research/Fentanyl%20Flows%20from%20China.pdf https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Research/Fentanyl%2...
- markdown 6y ago
  > subsidising death of American citizens via fentayl. LOL, do you really think people buy chinese fentanyl 'cos the shipping per gram is a few cents cheaper than it would be if they had to pay higher shipping rents?
  - lenkite 6y ago
    I made a terrible mistake by my short, snarky answers without citations because I mistakenly assumed that most people were already aware of this. But it seems that I was utterly wrong. (also I did not downvote you) Please read this report by the US trade commission. I can quote further citations if needed, but this one is a succinct briefing. https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/executive_briefings/ebot_george_serletis_fentanyl_from_china_pdf.pdf https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/executive_briefings/e... Please also read the United States Senate Sub-committee on Investigations Staff Report. https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Combatting%20the%20Opioid%20Crisis%20-%20Exploiting%20Vulnerabilities%20in%20International%20Mail1.pdf https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Combatting%20the%... "The preferred method of the international online (fentayl) sellers is Express Mail Service (“EMS”), a global delivery service for documents and merchandise contained in letters and package." Further reading in that report will show you how difficult it was to scan/inspect e-packet shipments due to immense volume.

asveikau 6y ago

But it's the mail. It simply arrives. If I am in some other country, I pay postage in that country, then that country gives it to USPS and says "your turn now". Are they going to send it back? Surely there can be negotiations between the two countries about how to split that cost paid overseas, but at the end of the day the mail comes in, what are we going to do, not deliver? If domestic mail is too expensive maybe let's address that.

411111111111111 6y ago
Accept it in harbor, send a new notification that it can be fetched after paying a processing fee (which includes the price of three previous notification). It's not like that isn't already done all over the place. It's not like that would happen often. They'd quickly adapt and start charging more for sending, making it a non-issue most of the time

ddingus 6y ago

The Post Office works off Postage, not Tax dollars. Congress is responsible for the rates. Politics and likely donor interests are why the rates are this way.

kazagistar 6y ago
The rates are set because Republicans want to have the postal service die and be fully privatized, and thus make regulstions to sabatoge it on a regular basis.

pishpash 6y ago

If you achieved the same level of bulk processing it may not be $0.50, but it wouldn't be $5 either.

m000 6y ago

> It’s sickening when I have to pay $5 to send something within the US, yet the same item would cost $.50 from China. What's sickening about this? It's different quality of service. Your $5 package will be received in a few days. With $.50 shipping, your Chinese trinket will be delivered in a couple of months. > So while I agree with you that we don’t necessarily need a profit motive at the usps, at the same time the taxpayers don’t need to subsidize cheap crap from China. Too late for that. China is world's manufactory. Your stuff will be shipped from China one way or another. Given that, subsidising direct shipping from China is the reasonable thing to do. Otherwise you will be paying a 5-10x markup to middlemen for the exact same item.

oh_sigh 6y ago
All the slow Chinese mail gets put on a boat, and taken to say a port in LA where it is offloaded and then inserted into the US mail system. If I bring a package to that same spot in LA where the packages enter the system, why can't I choose a shipping option that costs something less than 50 cents to anywhere in the US? The system was illogical. Whether you want to say that US shipping is too expensive, or Chinese shipping to the US too inexpensive is unimportant.
- m000 6y ago
  > why can't I choose a shipping option that costs something less than 50 cents to anywhere in the US? Not an American, but I believe there's a 2006 bill that prevents USPS from selling services below the cost. Learned about it in a John Oliver's video [1], mentioned somewhere else in this thread. I'd guess that Chinese epackets are part of an international agreement, so they are exempt. > The system was illogical. It would be illogical if USPS had flexible costs. But the USPS costs are more or less fixed. The mailman will go his round every day and will get his salary, even if he has little to deliver. So, you may as well have him deliver Chinese epackets, for whatever price the Chinese are willing to pay. And that's a good deal for the public. Otherwise the $1 trinket for China would be $6 (if Chinese had to pay full shipping), or $10 (if bought through a US-based reseller). [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoL8g0W9gAQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoL8g0W9gAQ
- 6y ago

tedmcory77 6y ago

Not only that, but it creates an anti competitive environment where someone like me, who sells to US customers, subsidizes those shipments from other countries. That's the real kicker in this whole thing.