Temporary suspension of acceptance of mail to the United States

There was chatter about this in one of the NYC subreddits over the weekend.

Apparently ending the de minimus exemption is closing the grey market for e.g. sunscreen; places that used to sell Japanese sunscreens on American shelves no longer are.

There's a frustratingly long list of goods that the US decided to put requirements on in previous generations, and then stopped maintaining. Sunscreen is one; other countries have invented sunscreens that feel better on your skin than the old styles, but aren't yet approved in the US. Motorcycle helmets are another. You may have seen the MIPS system - the yellow slipliner that's become popular in bicycle helmets. Scientists have realized that rotational impact leads to concussions and similar brain damage, but prior helmets only protected against naive impacts. Europe now requires helmets to protect against rotational damage. The US requires that manufacturers self-assert that they meet a very old standard that ignores rotational impact. They do not recognize Europe's new standard.

Closing these de minimus exemptions is making it harder for discerning consumers to buy higher quality goods than are currently available in the US right now. Protectionists are going to see this as a win.

More background on helmet standards:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BUyp3HX8cY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76yu124i3Bo

> Closing these de minimus exemptions is making it harder for discerning consumers to buy higher quality goods than are currently available in the US right now.

Everything has a trade-off.

On the other hand, it also prevents companies from dumping artificially cheap and crappy goods (TEMU) on US markets and making it nearly impossible for others to compete.

Unsuspecting consumers buy a super cheap (subsidized) crap product on Amazon or Temu or Shien or wherever - probably a knock-off of an American product, have it shipped to the US, then it disintegrates after a couple of uses or stops working, and we wind up with pollution, additional landfill, and relentless consumerism that's harmful to the country all so we can help a certain country whose name starts with a C keep the lights on and keep factories running so that they don't see unemployment numbers tick up.

Legitimate businesses selling higher quality products where they exist will be able to figure it out. Or not. It's not a big deal if your sunscreen is slightly worse than the Korean version (which I use). Maybe it just hasn't been approved because they haven't done the work to apply because they can get around working with our government and making sure their product meets our safety standards because of the de minimus loophole?

There's also safety concerns, which I think the CBP did a good job of overviewing here: https://www.cbp.gov/frontline/buyer-beware-bad-actors-exploi... . Send drugs or guns or illegal animal products to the US, get caught, who cares you live in (not the US) so you can just spin up another sham company and do it again.

The tradeoff here is “pay the middleman markup tax” for the most part.

Instead of getting cheap Chinese made clothing for $5, you now get to pay Walmart $17 for the same thing.

If we are going to outsource production in order to save on consumer goods costs, the consumer should be the one reaping the surplus - not capital. Properly informed buyers were quite capable of getting quality product out of China for a tenth of the cost of exactly the same thing stocked on major retailer shelves here.

While there are certainly abuses of the current system, it would be best to close those loopholes vs. just give a bunch of profits to giant companies for effectively doing nothing more than having scale and volume. If you’re lucky they may do some curation too.

Not everything was Temu or Shein. Plenty of smaller factories basically going direct to consumer in a win win sort of scenario. They get paid more, and the customer doesn’t pay any middlemen.

> Instead of getting cheap Chinese made clothing for $5, you now get to pay Walmart $17 for the same thing.

Right... but now that is (arguably) cost competitive with American labor and manufacturing. Or at least it's more cost competitive than it otherwise would be.

I mean this is kind of the price of putting what we say first. Want higher minimum wages, higher environmental standards, unionized labor, benefits/healthcare, lunch breaks, etc.? We will have to pay more, and we should, for those things.

You should trust people who live in countries that tariff a lot. You won't get quality crap. When tariffs cause the imported good to become equal to $200, the local good doesn't suddenly get cheaper it rises to match $180. Obviously any incentive that remained for local product to improve is now totally dashed too because of state forced back protection from competition. You end up paying multiple times the prices for the same shit sane countries buy much cheaper than you and life turns to shit, and the lower classes don't get better but end up loosing more money on the same crap.

I don't think we're comparing apples to apples though, and even so it's again just a trade-off we can make.

> the local good doesn't suddenly get cheaper it rises to match $180

Lowering prices isn't the goal, otherwise we could just export everything to (insert low-cost country here) and have products made as cheaply as possible regardless of working conditions or other considerations. The goal in part with tariffs would be to make it so that domestic products or products from friendly countries are cost competitive, not necessarily cheaper. Some folks just want the cheapest possible products and they don't care about any other issue. But that's just one factor among many for the nation. Some think that we should have lunch breaks and 40 hour work weeks and different environmental standards - that costs money and makes labor more expensive in countries like the United States.

I would disagree that there isn't an incentive to improve your local products, at least in the United States. The market here is big enough that we generally have competition regardless of whether or not competitors from other countries are participating in the market. But even so, it's not like competitors aren't participating in the market even with tariffs, it just changes the pricing calculations.

And what will you get by making a crappy product artificially competitive? Its the same inferior product still, except you artificially forced the better stuff to be more expensive. Its absolutely hilarious seeing USA adopt policies of communist countries of the Latin America.

Wrong, as I said just ask countries like Brazil what happens when you tariff everything to shit and beyond. Brazil doesn't have chip fabs still and still has to pay a huge amount for phones and computers.

The answer to local industry being shit isn't to coddle it further, it is to scare the living shit out of them. Clearly in-country competition isn't enough, otherwise it'd already have been better than foreign goods. That's how capitalism succeeds, coddling them will only lead to overall crappy product and crappy life everywhere. I find it quite amusing this anti China rhetoric suddenly jumped up after in some areas Chinese getting superior to Americans. Hilarious really how much of a sore loser America is.

Enjoy and suffer shit goods at shittier prices. The tradeoff is you get fucked in both, in any countries that do tariffs. If one of the goals was to make life better for the lower classes, what will happen is that it won't, they'd be fucked even more being forced to pay more for the same stuff.

> And what will you get by making a crappy product artificially competitive?

I disagree with this characterization on at least two points:

The first is that you're assuming the product is crappy. Maybe it's actually quite good but just slightly more expensive for whatever reason, maybe that's unionization or something. Many people may opt to pay $6 less for a cheaper "thing" because they're not thinking about quality or wages or other factors. I know plenty of people who opt for buy-and-replace strategies because of "cheaper" products.

Second you're assuming that the cheap product isn't also artificially competitive. Other countries subsidize manufacturing or have lower wages or have other factors that lead to the product being cheaper than it should be.

> Its absolutely hilarious seeing USA adopt policies of communist countries of the Latin America.

I'm not sure protectionist policies are inherently communist, but to the extent they are I expect leftists to cheer these policies on.

> Enjoy and suffer shit goods at shittier prices.

Sounds good - stop bothering us about our crappy decisions then?

>Other countries subsidize manufacturing or have lower wages or have other factors that lead to the product being cheaper than it should be.

Then do the same for Americans. Make better product, don't force people to buy crappier.

Its not just about the buyer choosing a quality-price tradeoff. Let us be honest, the USA (or any other country) isn't the best in every sector. Artificial tariffs just mean your people will have to buy worse product. Again, its a slide to Latam style communism, absolutely hilarious.

I will even agree that a careful and targeted application of tariffs can help grow certain industries and can be a beneficial thing, but again careful and targeted is key, its a teat that they should be removed from in time. But what Trump is doing isn't remotely targeted or thought out.

The fact that you somehow are pegging me as a leftist and reacting emotionally to simple statements of fact show how incredibly stupid people who love tariffs are. Absolute comedy.

Tariffs are essentially a signal you are a loser, you can't do better so you force barriers on others. And I will maintain this for all countries that do it, whether its USA, Brazil or China. You are not showing strength by tariffs you are showing how weak you are. If I were thinking of investing in a weakening country, I might think otherwise now.