3 ms·

> but who would have guessed whole business models would run off of this ruling Anyone who thought about it critically for like 10 minutes?

infecto 1y ago
The de minimis threshold dates back to the 1930s and has only been adjusted a handful of times—most recently in 1993 and then in 2016. The 2016 increase was substantial, and in hindsight, probably too high. Still, at the time, few could have anticipated just how fully it would be exploited. The business models we’re now seeing at scale—like Temu’s—didn’t meaningfully exist back then. Even Shein was far from the force it is today. The loophole may have been visible, but the ecosystem to take advantage of it at this level simply wasn’t in place yet. So no, this wasn’t as obvious as you’re pretending it was.
- fkyoureadthedoc 1y ago
  > Still, at the time, few could have anticipated just how fully it would be exploited In 1930? Sure, you couldn't expect them to know that everyone would have a wireless telegraph in their pocket and they'd have cheaper and more skilled Chinese labor/manufacturing available. In 2016? Really? Amazon was already going full steam. Ali Express was well known. It absolutely should have been obvious to legislators and those that lobby them professionally what would happen. How many people regularly, or even annually, buy items for over $800 from either of them?
  - infecto 1y ago
    You are either naive or a wishful thinker. Government moves slow and I have zero expectation they would have been able to see the writing on the wall. Again I think $800 was too high of a limit but I also think you give too much credit to your hindsight.
    - fkyoureadthedoc 1y ago
      Either naive or wishful thinker. No other option. As far back as the 1950s the textile industry was against raising the de minimis threshold because they wouldn't be able to compete with duty free mail order imports. We keep increasing it. We get SHEIN. Surprised Pikachu, nobody could have foreseen this.
transcriptase 1y ago
I’m convinced that a small proportion of people fundamentally can’t consider beyond first order consequences. Others can’t consider or imagine beyond second order consequences. One could argue third order relies more on domain knowledge than anything, which could explain why career politicians and bureaucrats genuinely can’t fathom the inevitable downstream effects of an action even if blindly obvious to those with business experience. It’s the same pattern with discussions of rent control. Despite overwhelming evidence that the third-order consequences make things worse for far more people than the first- and second-order effects help, proponents seem unable to reconcile that “preventing rent from increasing” could possibly make housing less affordable.
mindslight 1y ago
Aliexpress was already huge in 2016. And obviously the government could see the volume of parcels arriving via international mail and getting dumped off on USPS, because they did something about that.

infecto 1y ago

The de minimis threshold dates back to the 1930s and has only been adjusted a handful of times—most recently in 1993 and then in 2016. The 2016 increase was substantial, and in hindsight, probably too high. Still, at the time, few could have anticipated just how fully it would be exploited. The business models we’re now seeing at scale—like Temu’s—didn’t meaningfully exist back then. Even Shein was far from the force it is today. The loophole may have been visible, but the ecosystem to take advantage of it at this level simply wasn’t in place yet. So no, this wasn’t as obvious as you’re pretending it was.

fkyoureadthedoc 1y ago
> Still, at the time, few could have anticipated just how fully it would be exploited In 1930? Sure, you couldn't expect them to know that everyone would have a wireless telegraph in their pocket and they'd have cheaper and more skilled Chinese labor/manufacturing available. In 2016? Really? Amazon was already going full steam. Ali Express was well known. It absolutely should have been obvious to legislators and those that lobby them professionally what would happen. How many people regularly, or even annually, buy items for over $800 from either of them?
- infecto 1y ago
  You are either naive or a wishful thinker. Government moves slow and I have zero expectation they would have been able to see the writing on the wall. Again I think $800 was too high of a limit but I also think you give too much credit to your hindsight.
  - fkyoureadthedoc 1y ago
    Either naive or wishful thinker. No other option. As far back as the 1950s the textile industry was against raising the de minimis threshold because they wouldn't be able to compete with duty free mail order imports. We keep increasing it. We get SHEIN. Surprised Pikachu, nobody could have foreseen this.

transcriptase 1y ago

I’m convinced that a small proportion of people fundamentally can’t consider beyond first order consequences. Others can’t consider or imagine beyond second order consequences. One could argue third order relies more on domain knowledge than anything, which could explain why career politicians and bureaucrats genuinely can’t fathom the inevitable downstream effects of an action even if blindly obvious to those with business experience. It’s the same pattern with discussions of rent control. Despite overwhelming evidence that the third-order consequences make things worse for far more people than the first- and second-order effects help, proponents seem unable to reconcile that “preventing rent from increasing” could possibly make housing less affordable.

mindslight 1y ago

Aliexpress was already huge in 2016. And obviously the government could see the volume of parcels arriving via international mail and getting dumped off on USPS, because they did something about that.