<story><title>USPS loses millions each year on local delivery of mail from abroad (2014)</title><url>https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/09/12/the-postal-service-is-losing-millions-a-year-to-help-you-buy-cheap-stuff-from-china/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>cujo</author><text>Forgive my ignorance, but can&amp;#x27;t it go the other way also?&lt;p&gt;A contrived example...&lt;p&gt;A person has $X that they spend every week at the local town restaurant.  They see they can buy a cool new widget from a Chinese vendor (from the article) for $Y.  Over the course of the next few weeks, said person spends a little less at the restaurant so as to save up $Y, ultimately purchasing the widget once enough money is saved.&lt;p&gt;In this example the person is contributing less to the local economy.</text></item><item><author>scribu</author><text>How do you figure?&lt;p&gt;The surplus comes from the fact that US buyers don&amp;#x27;t have to pay a percentage to the intermediary, so they can spend it on other things, like going out to a local restaurant more often.</text></item><item><author>hueving</author><text>The global economy sure, but not the US economy.</text></item><item><author>hkmurakami</author><text>Also the seller&amp;#x27;s claim that direct doesn&amp;#x27;t add anything to the economy is false. That surplus will be directed elsewhere, hopefully to something more productive than what has become an unnecessary intermediary.</text></item><item><author>csydas</author><text>&amp;gt; All of this is little comfort to McGrath, who chafes at the thought of the Postal Service helping Chinese merchants poach his customers. “All of us sellers are selling a lot of Chinese goods in America but at least we’re creating jobs, making money, and adding to the economy,” he said. “But when people buy direct from China that’s adding nothing to the American economy.”&lt;p&gt;I understand the seller&amp;#x27;s frustration - their means of supporting themselves has been taken away, but I&amp;#x27;m not sure I buy the argument that we need the intermediary just to &amp;quot;add to the economy&amp;quot;. To me it just seems like an unsustainable business model that was destined to die once global communication became much easier, not just because of the various treaties and agreements of postal services.&lt;p&gt;The moment that chinese sellers could get a site available to a global audience, the need for an intermediary vanished; before you essentially paid for the connection; an extra $18 on a remote controlled toy boat was paying for access to the seller&amp;#x27;s inventory, supplied by his Chinese connections.&lt;p&gt;Now, there&amp;#x27;s no need for that connection or that warehouse - the visibility for any foreign seller is much greater, even to the point that it probably would still be valuable even without the USPS trade deal.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s unfortunate, but this just seems like a model that was destined to die.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>bearcobra</author><text>It can, and gets even more complicated when that widget was available locally for $Z and $Y &amp;lt; $Z. Was $Z so much greater than $Y that the person would have never started to save for it? Or did $Y mean they were able to start spending at the restaurant again sooner? How do you calculate the value of the cool new widget once the person has it?</text></comment>
<story><title>USPS loses millions each year on local delivery of mail from abroad (2014)</title><url>https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/09/12/the-postal-service-is-losing-millions-a-year-to-help-you-buy-cheap-stuff-from-china/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>cujo</author><text>Forgive my ignorance, but can&amp;#x27;t it go the other way also?&lt;p&gt;A contrived example...&lt;p&gt;A person has $X that they spend every week at the local town restaurant.  They see they can buy a cool new widget from a Chinese vendor (from the article) for $Y.  Over the course of the next few weeks, said person spends a little less at the restaurant so as to save up $Y, ultimately purchasing the widget once enough money is saved.&lt;p&gt;In this example the person is contributing less to the local economy.</text></item><item><author>scribu</author><text>How do you figure?&lt;p&gt;The surplus comes from the fact that US buyers don&amp;#x27;t have to pay a percentage to the intermediary, so they can spend it on other things, like going out to a local restaurant more often.</text></item><item><author>hueving</author><text>The global economy sure, but not the US economy.</text></item><item><author>hkmurakami</author><text>Also the seller&amp;#x27;s claim that direct doesn&amp;#x27;t add anything to the economy is false. That surplus will be directed elsewhere, hopefully to something more productive than what has become an unnecessary intermediary.</text></item><item><author>csydas</author><text>&amp;gt; All of this is little comfort to McGrath, who chafes at the thought of the Postal Service helping Chinese merchants poach his customers. “All of us sellers are selling a lot of Chinese goods in America but at least we’re creating jobs, making money, and adding to the economy,” he said. “But when people buy direct from China that’s adding nothing to the American economy.”&lt;p&gt;I understand the seller&amp;#x27;s frustration - their means of supporting themselves has been taken away, but I&amp;#x27;m not sure I buy the argument that we need the intermediary just to &amp;quot;add to the economy&amp;quot;. To me it just seems like an unsustainable business model that was destined to die once global communication became much easier, not just because of the various treaties and agreements of postal services.&lt;p&gt;The moment that chinese sellers could get a site available to a global audience, the need for an intermediary vanished; before you essentially paid for the connection; an extra $18 on a remote controlled toy boat was paying for access to the seller&amp;#x27;s inventory, supplied by his Chinese connections.&lt;p&gt;Now, there&amp;#x27;s no need for that connection or that warehouse - the visibility for any foreign seller is much greater, even to the point that it probably would still be valuable even without the USPS trade deal.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s unfortunate, but this just seems like a model that was destined to die.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>scribu</author><text>You&amp;#x27;re right, it could go both ways.&lt;p&gt;I guess the question then is: do we have a way of predicting which way it will go?</text></comment>