The U.S. can now set its own rates for mail from China and other countries

Re:The U.S. can now set its own rates for mail from China an... by ethanwillis on Monday June 29, 2020 @01:54AM (#23674771)

I think the American conception here is that if something is not profitable then it suggests the possibility that there is an alternative that provides the same utility but more efficiently.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The U.S. can now set its own rates for mail from China an... by ltbarcly3 on Monday June 29, 2020 @02:44AM (#23675013)

I think the conception here is that if you are subsidizing something in a way that is purely a wealth transfer to business, you should stop subsidizing it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The U.S. can now set its own rates for mail from China an... by ethanwillis on Monday June 29, 2020 @07:54AM (#23676705)

So my original comment was really just offering up the mindset behind why Americans are averse to services "costing" money.

While I think your comment may have been imbuing a value judgement on my original comment where I wasn't making any.. it does bring up a good point. Obviously this mindset doesn't hold true across the board for all services.

The one that immediately comes to mind is farming. I think more people are averse to the idea of farmers/farming operations going bankrupt. I think most people would be fine with a pure wealth transfer to that industry to help it get through a massive downturn. But why does that industry get a general pass?

My guess is that food production is perceived as more of a core need than mail/package delivery. Even when mail/package delivery is an important part of a modern economy.

[ Parent | on HN ]