Anyone got a non-intuited, horses-mouth reason why? I suspect (ie, intuit) that its actually an attack on the USPS, not on China. The party of government doesn't like the post office, and this is to teach us not to like the post office either.
I guess if they stopped using electric cars, they might like the post office again.
A huge portion of USPS international package volume is “ePackets” from China. These are a special service provided by USPS since 2011 for Chinese/HK goods that are cheaper and faster than normal USPS international shipping.
These ePackets are then bundled up into big sacks that are basically not inspected at all at US international mail facilities due to the de minimis exemption, which was just rolled back. The special status granted to ePackets meant that the volume shipped grew far beyond the processing capacity for normal packages at US IMFs. This pause (and subsequent unpause) from USPS on packages from China is because they don’t know how they’re going to handle that volume if it isn’t given special status.
Source: I worked on a project adjacent to this a couple of years ago. Close enough to pick up the basics but this isn’t quite what I was working on, so take my comment with a grain of salt.
It's worth noting that Congress has been trying to force the USPS to run itself like a self-sustaining business for decades at this point. It started in 1970 with the Postal Reorganization Act, which transformed it from a government department to an independent government entity that was expected to fund its operations entirely through its own revenue. Then in 2006, a Republican-controlled Congress passed the PAEA which required the USPS to pre-fund retiree health benefits seventy-five years into the future¹. Congress even restricted the USPS's ability to set its own rates, expand its services or close unprofitable locations without political interference.
¹ The retiree funding requirement was only changed recently when Biden signed the Postal Service Reform Act of 2022 into law.
USPS does more or less teeter on the edge of solvent and sustainable depending on how you measure and when you measure. All things considered, I think that's pretty damn good. Pretty much no other government service can claim that. I think the retiree funding requirement is/was dumb and an unnecessary handicap but the way USPS runs itself should be a model for other government services. The only reason we don't look at USPS as a massive success is because the idiot left brains want it to be run like a charity and the idiot right brains want it gone entirely.
> Pretty much no other government service can claim that.
Sure there are, they just don't get the air time and political attention. Examples I'm familiar with: The minerals, oil, and gas regulatory agencies bring in billions of dollars. A single lease sale in the gulf would make BOEM as an agency incredibly profitable but instead the money just goes up to the federal government and is redistributed. National Parks already collect entry fees and the NPS could easily raise those prices to meet or exceed agency expenses, public demand would almost certainly pay it, and they could also teeter like the USPS. Social Security, if it were never fucked with, would have more money from just interest than most country's GDPs but we've robbed that piggy bank numerous times already.
There's no revenue. The postage fees you pay (if you pay them) on Chinese goods are paid to China Post (or whatever Chinese shipping company), and USPS doesn't see a cent of it. And still has to deal with a frankly insane amount of packages from China.
It's not just a US problem. PostNord (Scandinavia) imposed a mandatory fee on all packages arriving from China until they reached an agreement with China Post (?) to get some of the money people pay for shipping
Sorry I responded to a comment which mentioned duty assessment. If this UPU/international postal union settlement rate stuff, that's not duty, it's a global model for cost reconciliation.
> Getting rid of de minimus exemptions made it impossible to assess duty on the volume of packages coming in. So they just won’t accept packages at all.
Doing an inspection is going to take a moderately well paid government employee a little bit of their time. I'd be very, very surprised if the cost of their labor is less, in expectation, than the tariff collected on the average de minimus shipment from China.
So, they don't check for fentanyl? Might explain the move. I remember ordering some prescription drugs from India, which is, I think, illegal. It arrived to local post office, so I guess, USPS.
Here in Norway, customs works tightly with the courier companies and postal service. They even have their own booth at the major postal hub, which processes all postal shipments from abroad.
I am doubtful that would explain it, though it may be offered as an explanation: don't you remember Trump just pardoned the founder of the drugs by mail organization silk road to pump his crypto?
>"In our view, the USPS would require some time to sort out how to execute the new taxes before allowing Chinese packages to arrive in the U.S. again," said Chelsey Tam, a senior equity analyst at Morningstar.
> The Trump administration this week imposed a 10% tariff on all goods from China and banned all low-value, e-commerce parcels from receiving duty-free benefits under the de minimis entry program. The administration said the emergency order is part of its strategy to stop the illegal shipment of fentanyl and precursor chemicals into the United States."
> The administration said the emergency order is part of its strategy to stop the illegal shipment of fentanyl and precursor chemicals into the United States."
Lol said out of their mouth while he was pardoning the head of the Silk Road underground/darkweb drug distribution organization to pump his crypto.
I don't know if China is fucked, but this reminded me of a map going around showing who in Latin America is trading more with: US or China [1]. In 2000, for everyone, it was the US. By 2023, for most it was China.
And one of the only hold-outs in South America is Colombia - a country Trump has already had a fight with. And with Trump's erratic tariff policies, I would imagine this trend would continue or accelerate.
China has a lot going for it. The right investments in green energy and EVs is maturing now, allowing them dominate basically 75% of the world market for energy production and vehicles (without local competitors). They are also making investments right now in AI and robotics that are already beginning to pay off. The US as a market doesn’t mean much to China anymore, and Trump’s aggressive treatment of enemies and allies alike are bound to push more countries into China’s corner.
Trump is basically dismantling the world-leading US’s influence and handing it over to China on a silver platter.
From a French point of view, I feel that Trump is going for self-reliance of the "USA", Panama, Greenland, Canada would lower greatly in external reliance and control better several trading routes.
And the US might still be the biggest consumer market in the world right now, but margins are thin and a lot of companies have spent the last few months preparing for Trump's whims.
Also, you're completely ignoring his most important point, which is that even allies now think of the US as unreliable. As an ally, as a trading parter and as a market. Trump is 100% destroying very important international relations and China is the country that will profit the most.
I’m pro-common sense. The anti-Chinese crowd on HN is just as annoying and uninformed as the pro-Chinese crowd. China has access to the rest of the world, and Trump is helping out with pushing the rest of the world toward China. So what if the USA is the largest consumer market in the world? China can replace them with internal consumption and developing world markets that are rapidly growing. Have you visited Australia recently? They don’t give a rats ass about protecting their auto market (they don’t produce any anymore), so Chinese cars are taking over. And in Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines, not to mention Africa. and definitely China is more interested in selling an EV to an African country than selling rubber dog poop to America. Moving up the value chain is a long sought goal for them anyways.
That vehicles make up 4% of their exports in 2024 is already telling because it was 0% only a few years ago. None of the clean tech was there a few years ago, they had no leadership in AI a few years ago, they weren’t producing fully mobile robots a few years ago. If you think they are stuck just because I’d a moribund real estate market and a demographic decline, well, I don’t see how that is even possible at this point.
Trump sh*tting on allies and enemies alike is more in china’s favor than the consumption they lose from the states. Even Mexico and Canada could get tired of the USA and just go full in with China if Trump pushes them too hard.
They wouldn't mind it, but Chinese EV & solar panel production volumes are already completely mind-boggling, they'll keep doing just fine without the US.
I don’t see our protectionism as a problem given their own, but there are plenty of countries who don’t want to import lots of oil and won’t mind buying Chinese EVs along with solar panels and wind turbines to achieve that. American simply isn’t the only consumer market anymore.
However china has a functioning and fairly flexible executive that is capable of making long term plans and executing them (see belt and road, debt trapping most of africa's ports and mines).
The US has a completely non-functioning legislature and an executive that is not in control of the president. The Executive does not have a plan past personal power grabs. When the president realises that he's been locked out of the mechanisms that control the executive, then all bets are off.
I guess if they stopped using electric cars, they might like the post office again.