You’re paying the costs, just indirectly via taxes and artificially higher US shipping costs.

Incorrect, I live in Australia.

This kinda reminds me of the conversation I had with my brother in law regarding the likes of SingAir, Emirates, and Qatar and just how much better they are when compared to US carriers that charge more on the same route despite providing an inferior product comparatively. He started on about how those air carriers are government subsidised, it's not fair, and I shouldn't be flying with them because of that. I told him I didn't care about the underlying business model, I want new aircraft, well trained staff, good quality food as well as service. Every one of those government subsidised carriers over deliver on every one of those metrics when compared to their US equivalents.

Sure, some people will take a stand because they feel the need to do so. But in general I don't believe most people care how their goods and services are subsidised, only that they believe they've received a better deal when compared to similar offerings from other providers.

Those airlines don't provide a better product for a lower cost, they are selling you a higher-end product and billing part of it to their own citizens. That's what government subsidy means.

Yes, I understand what government subsidies are and how they work. But if I'm not the one subsidising the product then I don't understand how me benefiting from that is a bad thing for me personally.

The US subsidises gasoline quite aggressively when compared to other countries around the world. You can see this in fuel costs; routinely US gasoline used to be cheaper by the gallon than Australian gasoline was by the litre. I've never once heard an American complain that their fuel is too cheap despite the fact that their taxes and government are directly responsible for said low cost.

Our gas is too cheap due to subsidies and/or due to inadequately accounting for the costs of externalities like pollution or wear/tear on roads. Or, more precisely, the lack of political will to acknowledge that discrepancy.

What subsidies for gasoline? Here we constantly fight over taxes on gasoline.

I think he just means that in relative terms gas taxes are lower in the US - but you’re right, there is no subsidy.

Perhaps not today, but an argument could be made that a whole lot of tax money has been spent over the last several decades to make sure that middle east oil came to the US.

Very little of it came to the US; the money was spent to assure low world oil prices, not to assure that Middle East oil came to the US.

Does the tree that falls in the forest with no one around to hear it, still make a sound?

For the person you’re replying to, it seems clear that the most important thing about the word “cost” is how much they personally pay — third parties are irrelevant.

“Sound”. “Cost”. The meanings of words are not as precisely identical as our subjective feelings tell us.

As a consumer in Australia, how do you benefit from cheap shipping from China to the US?

No, because those costs are paid regardless of how many packages you receive from China.

So sure, people living in the US are paying those costs "as a whole", but you don't pay any additional cost when you order a package.

It's like how driving on public roads is free, in the common sense of the word, even though of course the costs are still "paid" somehow, by somebody.

Aren't we still paying for shipping through taxes, since the USPS is a public institution?

No. The USPS is in the constitution because the Framer’s thought it was important to put there. But it is completley self-funded at this stage.

I call bullshit... They receive $100 million in tax dollars per year to subsidize blind and overseas citizens. They also get $18 billion per year in tax benefits. That is not self-funded by any stretch.

https://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2013/jul/24/am... http://fortune.com/2015/03/27/us-postal-service/

They are self funded except that every year they have another multi-billion dollar loss.

They have a multi-billion dollar loss because the GOP Congress passed legislation requiring them to pre-pay their employee retirement health benefits instead of funding it on a pay-as-you-go basis.

Given that the USPS is a government established and run service, thus backed by the USG in terms of its liabilities, the idea that somehow the USPS is "saving" this health benefit money somewhere is ludicrous.

It's just as stupid as the SS "trust fund" and "lockbox", which is nothing more than a paper shuffle of US treasuries from one drawer in a filing cabinet to another.

Is having the funds to pay for retiree benefits a terrible thing? In CA, most of our pensions for public employees can barely even meet current payments.

I agree about the mess of the social security paper shuffle though