Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by Fnord666 on Sunday October 21 2018, @04:15AM   Printer-friendly
from the not-going-postal dept.

Submitted via IRC for Bytram

Trump to pull US out of postal treaty

The US has announced plans to withdraw from a 144-year-old postal treaty, which the White House says lets China ship goods at unfairly low prices.

Under the treaty, a UN body sets lower international rates for packages from certain countries, a move originally designed to support poorer nations.

But the US says the discounts put American businesses at a disadvantage.

Officials said they hoped the notice of withdrawal would set the stage to agree a better deal.

"We're looking for a fair system," a senior administration official told reporters. "We do hope that ultimately we achieve a negotiated outcome."

The BBC's Asia business correspondent Karishma Vaswani says the move to pull out of the treaty is aimed at forcing the Chinese to give up the developing nation status they had when they first entered the pact back in 1969.

[...] The process of withdrawing from the treaty takes at least a year and the White House said it would be willing to remain in the UPU if negotiations were successful.

The US Postal Service and companies such as Amazon and FedEx have complained about the discounts for foreign shippers for many years.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by sjames on Sunday October 21 2018, @06:34PM (8 children)

    by sjames (2882) on Sunday October 21 2018, @06:34PM (#751738) Journal

    Trump is not the shrewd businessman he paints himself as. He is only effective when he holds most of the cards. That is, the classic bully.

    That's not to say we haven't seen some bad deals made by other presidents.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Informative=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday October 21 2018, @06:49PM (7 children)

    by jmorris (4844) on Sunday October 21 2018, @06:49PM (#751741)

    Doesn't it make you wonder, if the U.S. "holds all the cards" as you say, why have we made such horrible deals for decades that an "incompetent bungler" can get such better results merely by trying?

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by requerdanos on Sunday October 21 2018, @07:11PM (2 children)

      by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 21 2018, @07:11PM (#751747) Journal

      if the U.S. "holds all the cards" as you say

      No one said that but you. The key point here is that for President Trump, the "art of the deal" is don't negotiate until your position is stronger, and then demand what you want, and that negotiation between relative peers who must consider each other's positions is beyond him. Everyone has what they are good at, and seeing the other guy's position just happens to not be that thing for the President. That doesn't mean there is "hatred," merely recognition of his weaknesses and his lack of enthusiasm for exposing them during negotiations.

      why have we made such horrible deals for decades that an "incompetent bungler" can get such better results merely by trying?

      That's a very good, very insightful question, whether you meant for it to be or not. Often, he who negotiates on behalf of the U.S. keeps in mind a three-ring circus of things that they want to keep intact and beneficial throughout a negotiation: Good international relations, maintaining a U.S. ethical position on areas where we as a nation take a stand, appeasing other parties so we don't look like a bully, and last and sometimes least, our own interest. That often means that even if the "soft" goals are met, the real goal of serving U.S. interests has fallen by the wayside. This has come to even be some perverse sort of point of honor.

      Trump is a direct solution to this. He doesn't give a thought to international relations, he has no ethical positions, takes no stands except transient ones during particular negotiations, is horrified by the thought of appearing to appease any other party, and is interested in looking out for his own interest.

      Where his interests and the interests of the country coincide--which frequently happens now that he's president--that serves the U.S. interests in question.

      Doesn't it make you wonder

      It certainly should! Why does it take a barking orange reality TV star to actually look out for U.S. Interests? Couldn't, you know, politicians have been doing this all along?

      This is a big part of why the President got elected over more traditional, do-nothing candidates. He doesn't have to be a genius to exercise his advantages (thank God), he only has to exercise them. Everyone involved in international politics, or voting on people who will be, should take careful note.

      • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday October 21 2018, @11:16PM (1 child)

        by jmorris (4844) on Sunday October 21 2018, @11:16PM (#751803)

        Try to keep up, I quoted the words because I was QUOTING sjames in the parent post.

        And yeah, negotiation is generally done by each side going into it thinking they have a bit of leverage and asking for more than they will settle for. That is why they call it a negotiation. Duh. The question is why we sucked so hard at for for the last few generations.

        Couldn't, you know, politicians have been doing this all along?

        This here is the very heart of it. People like myself (and perhaps you) have realized most of our problems are quite simple ones, any idiot can see both the problem and an obvious solution. What was maddening was the unseen force that kept declaring the problems to not actually be problems and the solutions entirely outside the bounds of political debate.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 22 2018, @06:22PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 22 2018, @06:22PM (#752079)

          We're all way ahead of you, you are the regressive that needs to join modern human civilization.

    • (Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday October 21 2018, @08:37PM (3 children)

      by sjames (2882) on Sunday October 21 2018, @08:37PM (#751768) Journal

      requerdanos covered most of it, but we also have to ask, have we really gotten much in the way of results?

      • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday October 21 2018, @11:23PM (2 children)

        by jmorris (4844) on Sunday October 21 2018, @11:23PM (#751804)

        Have we got results. Hmm. Fifty year low unemployment, stock market up, taxes and regulations down. Domestic front looks pretty good for two years in. They are digging up the minefields in Korea and planning a formal end of the Korean War, no new wars started. NAFTA renegotiated, China slapped upside the head and fully engaged with us as equals instead of our normal bending over and telling them to be gentle with our butthole... but they never were. BrExit wobbling but still on, Europe generally waking up from the nightmare before succumbing to death. So yeah, the foreign front looks pretty good too. Still no wall but that is the hill the Progs will die on, so we have to build up the political will to give them their wish.

        Since I voted for Mr. Trump as basically the chosen form of the Destructor, grading the 2nd Season of The Trump Presidency a solid A-. Dinging for no wall, and Hillary Clinton still walking free.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Monday October 22 2018, @01:01AM (1 child)

          by sjames (2882) on Monday October 22 2018, @01:01AM (#751836) Journal

          Taxes down, deficit up. Unemployment following the trend left by previous administration (though it slowed down since Trump took over). New NAFTA is largely cosmetic changes over the old NAFTA. A win for Mexican unions (what benefit here?) A win for Big Pharma (no benefits for the rest of us) minor opening of dairy market in Canada (yeah, higher milk prices for us!) The Koreas are taking care of the Koreas just fine by themselves. Trump has literally nothing to do with Brexit (not sure why you care unless you just want to see others hurting).

          The biggest "win" is that he's been totally ineffective building the wall so at least we don't have that big fat bill to pay for now (you don't REALLY think Mexico is going to pay for that, do you?) and he hasn't managed to leave millions without healthcare.

          • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 22 2018, @07:14AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 22 2018, @07:14AM (#751892)

            Walls are way cheaper than interstate highways. Note the interstate highways all over the country.

            The wall is cheaper than the cost of dealing with the illegal aliens for 2 years. It thus pays for itself quickly. It would be a good investment even if we had to replace it ever 2 years.

            The wall is pocket change for the Mexican government. They can easily afford it.

            The wall is not even pocket change for the US government. Using appropriate units for US government finances, the wall cost rounds to $0.