←back to thread

Temporary suspension of acceptance of mail to the United States

(www.post.japanpost.jp)
346 points Kye | 4 comments | 25 Aug 25 17:41 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
favflam ◴[25 Aug 25 18:00 UTC] No.45016762[source]▶
This situation feels dumb. I feel like I am watching idiots cheer on someone doing parkor and that person getting his teeth smashed on a wall. Like, what is the point?
replies(6): >>45016813 #>>45016814 #>>45016833 #>>45016847 #>>45016851 #>>45017297 #
ajmurmann ◴[25 Aug 25 18:03 UTC] No.45016813[source]▶
The implementation is also needlessly fumbled. All these shippers are suspending their service temporarily because this is all so rushed. Normally there would be larger lead times for changes like this and shippers and importers could adjust their processes and businesses with less friction.

And that's not even accounting for the fact that there is little reason to believe that many of these changes might never actually take effect or be rolled back soon. So much cost that could have been avoided!

replies(3): >>45016850 #>>45016972 #>>45017005 #
1. shadowgovt ◴[25 Aug 25 18:16 UTC] No.45017005[source]▶
This is one of the larger effects of Trump's rule-by-EO approach that I think people are coming to realize:

The US government moves slow and the US is big. Big-and-slow can be planned for. Big-and-fast cannot be planned for and is, in fact, hugely disruptive.

Apart from all other parameters, the US does poorly with tyrannical-style rule because it's bad for business.

replies(1): >>45017811 #
2. ajmurmann ◴[25 Aug 25 19:19 UTC] No.45017811[source]▶
You could rule by EO and just have them take effect further out, no?
replies(1): >>45018257 #
3. shadowgovt ◴[25 Aug 25 19:56 UTC] No.45018257[source]▶
And, indeed, it could be argued that past administrations have done that. Congressional deadlock has been an issue in the US for quite some time, and the administration has to go on anyway. Off the top of my head, I am reminded of Obama essentially ceding control of marijuana policy to the states by making it clear to the ATF that prosecuting federal possession crime in states that had legalized the drug was legal, within their authority... And a short path to locking in a desk job at their current level indefinitely.

But when previous administrations did this, they (usually, as far as I know) consulted with domain experts on predictable consequences and set timelines to factor that in. This administration seems to have "effective immediately" as the only timeframe it's aware of.

replies(1): >>45022272 #
4. ajmurmann ◴[26 Aug 25 04:26 UTC] No.45022272{3}[source]▶
Nah, that's unfair! "Two weeks" seems to be a very popular timeframe as well.