Buying and Selling

On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 6:12:46 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:

snip

While I do not always disagree (just usually) with Alex
Kosinsky, isn't his reputation and body of work enough to
get a summary decision on change of venue? He's a flake.

The dude is mean, and with his accent, you want to scream "what are you saying!" He's one of those guys who likes to stick it to the lawyers, but seriously, I'm too old to care. I've seen youngsters freeze up -- which is kind of funny and tragic all at the same time.

Arguing at the Ninth Circuit is mostly a waste of time because the judges have bench memos and the outcome is pretty much a done deal. The clerks are sitting in front row writing the opinion. You could get up there and just go "blah, blah, blah" and the outcome would be the same.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 6:12:46 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/28/2017 5:11 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 1:58:41 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 8:25:06 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 7:30:44 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-09-27 11:37, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 7:18:35 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-09-26 19:39, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 07:26:12 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-09-25 19:23, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 07:06:25 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-09-24 17:01, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 07:34:50 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-09-23 20:52, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 08:15:14 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-09-22 19:03, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 12:36:31 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-09-19 19:44, sms wrote:
On 9/19/2017 6:52 PM, somebody wrote:

On 2017-09-19 07:06,
wrote:

snip

Or the brake pads from China, $2/pair and
free ship. As I have always said the
postage fees are grossly lopsided between
Asia and the US and that is one of the core
reasosn for our trade deficit. Except that
most politicians (except manybe one ...) do
not understand that.

It's an international reciprocal postal
treaty that no one worried about when it was
mainly U.S. residents of Chinese descent
sending packages to relatives in China.


More than a decade ago tyat has changed, big
time. How long does it take for politicians to
turn on their brains? Or for some of them, do
they even have one?


... The origin country gets all the postage
and the destination country gets nothing with
the assumption that the volume will be
roughly equal.

The small volume of direct-to-consumer
low-value items from China is not a core
reason for the trade deficit.


It is rising, big time. I know people who buy
just about anything other than groceries on
EBay. When they say "Oh, it always gets here in
three to five weeks" you know what's going on.
Heck, I even had stuff I bought on Amazon come
via "China Post".


... These items would still come into the
U.S. through other channels, at higher
prices, were it not so cheap to do
international shipping from China, you'd just
have a middleman.


Same reason. The stuff then comes in bulk but
the shipping charges are grossly lower than if
a US vendor sent the same items to Asia. It
isn't just China. For example, when we needed
name tags for our therapy dogs' vests (for
nursing home visits) we ordered them via
Amazon. A small package arrived from Manila,
Philippines. I couldn't believe it considering
that we had paid just a few Dollars. Looked at
the postage, calculated - $0.60. Airmail! It
came from a seamstress who appears to
specialize in cloth name tags. The shipping
cost discrepancy alone puts similar
seamstresses in the US out of business.

Given that the cost of living, and salaries, are
as much as five times cheaper in China than in
the U.S. how is changing the mailing costs going
to effect sales?


The ships and aircraft aren't going to be operable
at five times less.

Certainly ships are noticeably cheaper to operate if
they are NOT U.S. flag vessels. Aircraft? I'm not
sure but I would bet that crew costs are noticeably
cheaper and almost certainly maintenance costs are
cheaper and I would guess if a national carrier in
China that fuel costs are also cheaper.


Nope. They pretty much pay international (for example
Singapore) prices:

http://www.edisoninvestmentresearch....ID=18116&LANG=



China Post flies Boeing and I can hardly imagine that they get spare
parts and service a whole lot cheaper than anyone else
whose fleet consist of Boeing aircraft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Postal_Airlines

You seem to assume that Boeing parts are all that enter
into maintaining an airplane. Wrong. The engines, for
example, can be overhauled and labour, facilities and
equipment are a large part of the cost of the overhaul.
The airframe maintenance is also largely a matter of
facilities, labour and equipment.


Ah yes, and of course Rolls-Royce sells their engine parts
and service to the Chinese at an 80% discount ...

To be honest I don't know how Rolls sells their jet engines
but I do know that the U.S. engine makers sold their engines
to the USAF much cheaper then they sold the same engines to
commercial users.


The Pentagon will get the usual qualtity discount but not
80-90%. With China Post (and many others) versus USPS we are
talking factors of 5:1 to 10:1 here. That difference is not
found in the equipment.

Nope, according to the GE rep the USAF got their engines cheaper
because they did not demand any form of guarantee.


How _much_ cheaper?


But I am sure that you know that jet engines are manufactured
in China? CFN International, a joint venture between GE and
SAFRAN Group. CFM has already delivered 20,000 engines over
four decades, making it the most popular airline jet engine
ever. In fact, a CFM-powered airplane takes off every 2.5
seconds.

Perhaps they aren't using Rolls engines :-)


No, but they aren't selling the engines and the service for
1/10th of the price.



Hey! I was in the business of maintaining airplanes for
my uncle for 20 years and the normal maintenance manpower
for a fleet of airplanes was several hundred people. All
of whom are five times cheaper in China, and the
equipment, tools maintenance stands, buildings, all
cheaper in China.


Your uncle probably didn't fly Boeings or Airbuses
internationally. Those companies require quite strict
procedures or they will call off all bets.

Nope. The companies that make airplanes usually offer a
number of what one might call "standard" versions, for
example number of passenger seats or number of crew
positions. Indonesia for example bought Boeing aircraft with
only two crew positions when other companies were buying
three crew configurations.

And once you buy the thing, test flown and accepted, the
aircraft belongs to you and Boeing or Airbus no longer have
anything to say about it.


The air traffic regulator in the respective countries has a
word to say about that. They usually require maintenance per
the book, per manufacturer's instructions. There is no "Oh,
let's use that aftermarket part here because the original is
too expensive". You don't follow those rules, you lose cert.
Some countries are a bit loose here and then it can happen (and
has) that the FAA prohibits their aircraft from coming into US
air space. Rightfully so.


Nope again. Yes various countries do attempt to control the
quality (for want of a better word) of aircraft flying into their
country but "after market" parts are not forbidden as innumerable
different manufacturers make airplane parts.


Only if approved for type and model. Supplemental Type Certificate
or STC. I know a little about this stuff because I am sometimes
designing electronics for aircraft and while doing that I am a
consultant to third party companies, not to an aircraft
manufacturer (except once) .


What does happen is that all aircraft parts must be approved - I
think that they call it "type approved" for aircraft use - and as
long as that is documented then there is no question that it can
be used.


See?

[...]


When I was in Indonesia we were approached by a group of
Indonesian Airforce people to see if we could improve the
maintenance on their helicopters. We approached the
helicopter makers about parts prices and were referred to
their S.E.A. representative who, in effect, told us to get
lost as they already hade a very nice arrangement to sell
parts to the Indonesian air force at prices much higher then
they were selling to private helicopter companies in the
region.


It does not explain a 5-10x factor between US and Chinese
shipping costs. There is more going on, way deeper than
equipment-related.

Firstly you are saying "shipping costs" which imply moving
substantial amounts of freight, trans-oceanic, by air or sea
which is determined primarily by supply and demand, when what
you are talking about is sending mail, rates for which is
determined by the government of the country in which the mail is
posted.


Mail = shipping. When some buys a bearing for a vehcile front wheel
or whatever in China it must be shipped. They generally use China
Post for that. Which charges a small fractions of the cost to the
shipper as the US Post Office does in the other direction. _That_
is the problem. This was greatly aggravated by the stupid decision
to no longer offer surface mail overseas.


Yes, because China is subsidizing the cost of shipping.


That is what I am suspecting.


... Neither this
president nor this administration is going to subsidize your shipping
overseas. Not with USPS sucking-dry the general fund.


If they are subsidizing then the US is justified in slapping a tariff on
incoming goods via China Post in order to level the playing field. Simple.


And why should I, the American public (I'm putting on my MAGA hat),
pay more taxes to lower the cost of your shipping to China? You
should pay what it costs and pass it on as a business expense. Or, as
in the case of real businesses, you ship via container and pay the
charge.

The easy way of equalizing the imbalance is to apply a tariff to
incoming Chinese goods equal to the difference in shipping costs.


Exactly. And Trump is the first president in years to hint at that.


Hey, maybe I'll give that idea to The Donald the next time I see him
on the golf course. The answer is not making shipping cheap for you
and causing the USPS to swirl further down the deficit drain.


He already knows but fiorst has to deal with a nut case east of China.

I don't think he knows much of anything, really. One hopes he has good advisers (this week). Trade and tax policy is extremely complicated and accounts (at least in part) for many of the wars fought by this nation -- even before it was a nation, e.g. Barbary Pirates exacting "tariffs," import duty on tea, etc., etc. You don't tweet those kinds of policies. And if you were a true conservative, you'd be saying "why is the government running a postal service anyway? Shouldn't that be private market?" Then if you were a true free-marketer, you would ****-can all duties, tariffs and other impediments to trade. If that meant you, as some tiny manufacturer, lost overseas business or went out of business, then so be it. It's a mountain-lion-eat-mountain-lion world out there. It is not a fair place, and it never has been.

Jay, really, what do you know about trade and tax policies? That is hardly your specialty I would warrant.

I was the North American expert on the UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG) for about a day, or maybe or a week -- because of a footnote in one of my cases. http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950412u1.html

I get involved in trade and tax policy only incidentally. I have to get involved in the Jones Act and flagging issues, which has gotten into the news lately with the devastation in Puerto Rico, foreign supply of fuel to vessels. Mega Yachts made in Germany. This and that. http://cdn.ca9.uscourts..gov/datasto...9/13-35163.pdf

You wanna talk about the wacky Ninth Circuit, try arguing to former Cheif Judge Kozinski. It's like getting a half-hour prostate exam. That was going to the USSC before we settled. I was proud of the cert petition in that case.

I don't do any real tariff work except that I had to pay a duty for some wheels I bought from Wiggle before DHL would deliver them. What a rip-off! Order from PBK -- they tend to skip the whole duty thing.

I've had to deal with the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act suing Chinese corporations who are all state owned. Don't expect to get a quick settlement with some Chinese OE supplier or Chinese insurer.

Totally OT, but what I find fascinating about suing the Chinese is that they never speak English at deposition or trial. All testimony is given with great effort through an interpreter -- who always seems to be the wrong interpreter, Cantonese versus Mandarin, etc., etc. Anyway, the second the guy (always a guy) is done, and he's walking out with his attorney, I can hear him speaking English and saying things like "hey, let's go get some hookers."

Something you might be a great deal more educated about - exactly what is the limit in small claims court in California, Alameda County? It looks like the insurance company for that woman who ran into and totaled my parked car is simply planning on doing nothing at all.

That would require work on my part -- and I'm prohibited from practicing law in California. It should be available on the internet. It is! http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/s...ims/file.shtml

-- Jay Beattie.


While I do not always disagree (just usually) with Alex
Kosinsky, isn't his reputation and body of work enough to
get a summary decision on change of venue? He's a flake.

What are you talking about Andrew? Kozinsky retired in 2014.

On Friday, September 29, 2017 at 9:17:40 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 6:12:46 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/28/2017 5:11 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 1:58:41 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 8:25:06 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 7:30:44 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-09-27 11:37, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 7:18:35 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-09-26 19:39, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 07:26:12 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-09-25 19:23, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 07:06:25 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-09-24 17:01, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 07:34:50 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-09-23 20:52, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 08:15:14 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-09-22 19:03, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 12:36:31 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-09-19 19:44, sms wrote:
On 9/19/2017 6:52 PM, somebody wrote:

On 2017-09-19 07:06,
wrote:

snip

Or the brake pads from China, $2/pair and
free ship. As I have always said the
postage fees are grossly lopsided between
Asia and the US and that is one of the core
reasosn for our trade deficit. Except that
most politicians (except manybe one ...) do
not understand that.

It's an international reciprocal postal
treaty that no one worried about when it was
mainly U.S. residents of Chinese descent
sending packages to relatives in China.


More than a decade ago tyat has changed, big
time. How long does it take for politicians to
turn on their brains? Or for some of them, do
they even have one?


... The origin country gets all the postage
and the destination country gets nothing with
the assumption that the volume will be
roughly equal.

The small volume of direct-to-consumer
low-value items from China is not a core
reason for the trade deficit.


It is rising, big time. I know people who buy
just about anything other than groceries on
EBay. When they say "Oh, it always gets here in
three to five weeks" you know what's going on.
Heck, I even had stuff I bought on Amazon come
via "China Post".


... These items would still come into the
U.S. through other channels, at higher
prices, were it not so cheap to do
international shipping from China, you'd just
have a middleman.


Same reason. The stuff then comes in bulk but
the shipping charges are grossly lower than if
a US vendor sent the same items to Asia. It
isn't just China. For example, when we needed
name tags for our therapy dogs' vests (for
nursing home visits) we ordered them via
Amazon. A small package arrived from Manila,
Philippines. I couldn't believe it considering
that we had paid just a few Dollars. Looked at
the postage, calculated - $0.60. Airmail! It
came from a seamstress who appears to
specialize in cloth name tags. The shipping
cost discrepancy alone puts similar
seamstresses in the US out of business.

Given that the cost of living, and salaries, are
as much as five times cheaper in China than in
the U.S. how is changing the mailing costs going
to effect sales?


The ships and aircraft aren't going to be operable
at five times less.

Certainly ships are noticeably cheaper to operate if
they are NOT U.S. flag vessels. Aircraft? I'm not
sure but I would bet that crew costs are noticeably
cheaper and almost certainly maintenance costs are
cheaper and I would guess if a national carrier in
China that fuel costs are also cheaper.


Nope. They pretty much pay international (for example
Singapore) prices:

http://www.edisoninvestmentresearch....ID=18116&LANG=



China Post flies Boeing and I can hardly imagine that they get spare
parts and service a whole lot cheaper than anyone else
whose fleet consist of Boeing aircraft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Postal_Airlines

You seem to assume that Boeing parts are all that enter
into maintaining an airplane. Wrong. The engines, for
example, can be overhauled and labour, facilities and
equipment are a large part of the cost of the overhaul.
The airframe maintenance is also largely a matter of
facilities, labour and equipment.


Ah yes, and of course Rolls-Royce sells their engine parts
and service to the Chinese at an 80% discount ...

To be honest I don't know how Rolls sells their jet engines
but I do know that the U.S. engine makers sold their engines
to the USAF much cheaper then they sold the same engines to
commercial users.


The Pentagon will get the usual qualtity discount but not
80-90%. With China Post (and many others) versus USPS we are
talking factors of 5:1 to 10:1 here. That difference is not
found in the equipment.

Nope, according to the GE rep the USAF got their engines cheaper
because they did not demand any form of guarantee.


How _much_ cheaper?


But I am sure that you know that jet engines are manufactured
in China? CFN International, a joint venture between GE and
SAFRAN Group. CFM has already delivered 20,000 engines over
four decades, making it the most popular airline jet engine
ever. In fact, a CFM-powered airplane takes off every 2.5
seconds.

Perhaps they aren't using Rolls engines :-)


No, but they aren't selling the engines and the service for
1/10th of the price.



Hey! I was in the business of maintaining airplanes for
my uncle for 20 years and the normal maintenance manpower
for a fleet of airplanes was several hundred people. All
of whom are five times cheaper in China, and the
equipment, tools maintenance stands, buildings, all
cheaper in China.


Your uncle probably didn't fly Boeings or Airbuses
internationally. Those companies require quite strict
procedures or they will call off all bets.

Nope. The companies that make airplanes usually offer a
number of what one might call "standard" versions, for
example number of passenger seats or number of crew
positions. Indonesia for example bought Boeing aircraft with
only two crew positions when other companies were buying
three crew configurations.

And once you buy the thing, test flown and accepted, the
aircraft belongs to you and Boeing or Airbus no longer have
anything to say about it.


The air traffic regulator in the respective countries has a
word to say about that. They usually require maintenance per
the book, per manufacturer's instructions. There is no "Oh,
let's use that aftermarket part here because the original is
too expensive". You don't follow those rules, you lose cert.
Some countries are a bit loose here and then it can happen (and
has) that the FAA prohibits their aircraft from coming into US
air space. Rightfully so.


Nope again. Yes various countries do attempt to control the
quality (for want of a better word) of aircraft flying into their
country but "after market" parts are not forbidden as innumerable
different manufacturers make airplane parts.


Only if approved for type and model. Supplemental Type Certificate
or STC. I know a little about this stuff because I am sometimes
designing electronics for aircraft and while doing that I am a
consultant to third party companies, not to an aircraft
manufacturer (except once) .


What does happen is that all aircraft parts must be approved - I
think that they call it "type approved" for aircraft use - and as
long as that is documented then there is no question that it can
be used.


See?

[...]


When I was in Indonesia we were approached by a group of
Indonesian Airforce people to see if we could improve the
maintenance on their helicopters. We approached the
helicopter makers about parts prices and were referred to
their S.E.A. representative who, in effect, told us to get
lost as they already hade a very nice arrangement to sell
parts to the Indonesian air force at prices much higher then
they were selling to private helicopter companies in the
region.


It does not explain a 5-10x factor between US and Chinese
shipping costs. There is more going on, way deeper than
equipment-related.

Firstly you are saying "shipping costs" which imply moving
substantial amounts of freight, trans-oceanic, by air or sea
which is determined primarily by supply and demand, when what
you are talking about is sending mail, rates for which is
determined by the government of the country in which the mail is
posted.


Mail = shipping. When some buys a bearing for a vehcile front wheel
or whatever in China it must be shipped. They generally use China
Post for that. Which charges a small fractions of the cost to the
shipper as the US Post Office does in the other direction. _That_
is the problem. This was greatly aggravated by the stupid decision
to no longer offer surface mail overseas.


Yes, because China is subsidizing the cost of shipping.


That is what I am suspecting.


... Neither this
president nor this administration is going to subsidize your shipping
overseas. Not with USPS sucking-dry the general fund.


If they are subsidizing then the US is justified in slapping a tariff on
incoming goods via China Post in order to level the playing field. Simple.


And why should I, the American public (I'm putting on my MAGA hat),
pay more taxes to lower the cost of your shipping to China? You
should pay what it costs and pass it on as a business expense. Or, as
in the case of real businesses, you ship via container and pay the
charge.

The easy way of equalizing the imbalance is to apply a tariff to
incoming Chinese goods equal to the difference in shipping costs.


Exactly. And Trump is the first president in years to hint at that..


Hey, maybe I'll give that idea to The Donald the next time I see him
on the golf course. The answer is not making shipping cheap for you
and causing the USPS to swirl further down the deficit drain.


He already knows but fiorst has to deal with a nut case east of China.

I don't think he knows much of anything, really. One hopes he has good advisers (this week). Trade and tax policy is extremely complicated and accounts (at least in part) for many of the wars fought by this nation -- even before it was a nation, e.g. Barbary Pirates exacting "tariffs," import duty on tea, etc., etc. You don't tweet those kinds of policies. And if you were a true conservative, you'd be saying "why is the government running a postal service anyway? Shouldn't that be private market?" Then if you were a true free-marketer, you would ****-can all duties, tariffs and other impediments to trade. If that meant you, as some tiny manufacturer, lost overseas business or went out of business, then so be it. It's a mountain-lion-eat-mountain-lion world out there. It is not a fair place, and it never has been.

Jay, really, what do you know about trade and tax policies? That is hardly your specialty I would warrant.

I was the North American expert on the UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG) for about a day, or maybe or a week -- because of a footnote in one of my cases. http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950412u1.html

I get involved in trade and tax policy only incidentally. I have to get involved in the Jones Act and flagging issues, which has gotten into the news lately with the devastation in Puerto Rico, foreign supply of fuel to vessels. Mega Yachts made in Germany. This and that. http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...9/13-35163.pdf

You wanna talk about the wacky Ninth Circuit, try arguing to former Cheif Judge Kozinski. It's like getting a half-hour prostate exam. That was going to the USSC before we settled. I was proud of the cert petition in that case.

I don't do any real tariff work except that I had to pay a duty for some wheels I bought from Wiggle before DHL would deliver them. What a rip-off! Order from PBK -- they tend to skip the whole duty thing.

I've had to deal with the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act suing Chinese corporations who are all state owned. Don't expect to get a quick settlement with some Chinese OE supplier or Chinese insurer.

Totally OT, but what I find fascinating about suing the Chinese is that they never speak English at deposition or trial. All testimony is given with great effort through an interpreter -- who always seems to be the wrong interpreter, Cantonese versus Mandarin, etc., etc. Anyway, the second the guy (always a guy) is done, and he's walking out with his attorney, I can hear him speaking English and saying things like "hey, let's go get some hookers."

Something you might be a great deal more educated about - exactly what is the limit in small claims court in California, Alameda County? It looks like the insurance company for that woman who ran into and totaled my parked car is simply planning on doing nothing at all.

That would require work on my part -- and I'm prohibited from practicing law in California. It should be available on the internet. It is! http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/s...ims/file.shtml

-- Jay Beattie.


While I do not always disagree (just usually) with Alex
Kosinsky, isn't his reputation and body of work enough to
get a summary decision on change of venue? He's a flake.

What are you talking about Andrew? Kozinsky retired in 2014.

No, he didn't. https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content...ior_judges.php He stepped down as chief judge in 2014. It's a seven year term. He's not even senior status yet.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 2017-09-19 07:06, wrote:
I'm pretty sensitive to component prices since I have to build everything up from scratch.

One thing that has become clear lately is that buying from an on-line store directly is becoming cheaper than buying from Ebay or Amazon.


This topped it all: The two paint brushes I ordered from Hong Kong via
EBay on Sep-19 were shipped on Sep-20 and arrived on Sep-28, via
airmail. For all of $3 including shipping. I couldn't ship them to the
other side of town even if I gave them away.

Nobody can tell me that there isn't anything lopsided about the
conditions that Chinese merchants get versus those that US merchants get.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 9/29/2017 11:17 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 6:12:46 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/28/2017 5:11 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 1:58:41 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 8:25:06 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 7:30:44 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-09-27 11:37, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 7:18:35 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-09-26 19:39, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 07:26:12 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-09-25 19:23, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 07:06:25 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-09-24 17:01, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 07:34:50 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-09-23 20:52, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 08:15:14 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-09-22 19:03, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 12:36:31 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-09-19 19:44, sms wrote:
On 9/19/2017 6:52 PM, somebody wrote:

On 2017-09-19 07:06,
wrote:

snip

Or the brake pads from China, $2/pair and
free ship. As I have always said the
postage fees are grossly lopsided between
Asia and the US and that is one of the core
reasosn for our trade deficit. Except that
most politicians (except manybe one ...) do
not understand that.

It's an international reciprocal postal
treaty that no one worried about when it was
mainly U.S. residents of Chinese descent
sending packages to relatives in China.


More than a decade ago tyat has changed, big
time. How long does it take for politicians to
turn on their brains? Or for some of them, do
they even have one?


... The origin country gets all the postage
and the destination country gets nothing with
the assumption that the volume will be
roughly equal.

The small volume of direct-to-consumer
low-value items from China is not a core
reason for the trade deficit.


It is rising, big time. I know people who buy
just about anything other than groceries on
EBay. When they say "Oh, it always gets here in
three to five weeks" you know what's going on.
Heck, I even had stuff I bought on Amazon come
via "China Post".


... These items would still come into the
U.S. through other channels, at higher
prices, were it not so cheap to do
international shipping from China, you'd just
have a middleman.


Same reason. The stuff then comes in bulk but
the shipping charges are grossly lower than if
a US vendor sent the same items to Asia. It
isn't just China. For example, when we needed
name tags for our therapy dogs' vests (for
nursing home visits) we ordered them via
Amazon. A small package arrived from Manila,
Philippines. I couldn't believe it considering
that we had paid just a few Dollars. Looked at
the postage, calculated - $0.60. Airmail! It
came from a seamstress who appears to
specialize in cloth name tags. The shipping
cost discrepancy alone puts similar
seamstresses in the US out of business.

Given that the cost of living, and salaries, are
as much as five times cheaper in China than in
the U.S. how is changing the mailing costs going
to effect sales?


The ships and aircraft aren't going to be operable
at five times less.

Certainly ships are noticeably cheaper to operate if
they are NOT U.S. flag vessels. Aircraft? I'm not
sure but I would bet that crew costs are noticeably
cheaper and almost certainly maintenance costs are
cheaper and I would guess if a national carrier in
China that fuel costs are also cheaper.


Nope. They pretty much pay international (for example
Singapore) prices:

http://www.edisoninvestmentresearch....ID=18116&LANG=



China Post flies Boeing and I can hardly imagine that they get spare
parts and service a whole lot cheaper than anyone else
whose fleet consist of Boeing aircraft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Postal_Airlines

You seem to assume that Boeing parts are all that enter
into maintaining an airplane. Wrong. The engines, for
example, can be overhauled and labour, facilities and
equipment are a large part of the cost of the overhaul.
The airframe maintenance is also largely a matter of
facilities, labour and equipment.


Ah yes, and of course Rolls-Royce sells their engine parts
and service to the Chinese at an 80% discount ...

To be honest I don't know how Rolls sells their jet engines
but I do know that the U.S. engine makers sold their engines
to the USAF much cheaper then they sold the same engines to
commercial users.


The Pentagon will get the usual qualtity discount but not
80-90%. With China Post (and many others) versus USPS we are
talking factors of 5:1 to 10:1 here. That difference is not
found in the equipment.

Nope, according to the GE rep the USAF got their engines cheaper
because they did not demand any form of guarantee.


How _much_ cheaper?


But I am sure that you know that jet engines are manufactured
in China? CFN International, a joint venture between GE and
SAFRAN Group. CFM has already delivered 20,000 engines over
four decades, making it the most popular airline jet engine
ever. In fact, a CFM-powered airplane takes off every 2.5
seconds.

Perhaps they aren't using Rolls engines :-)


No, but they aren't selling the engines and the service for
1/10th of the price.



Hey! I was in the business of maintaining airplanes for
my uncle for 20 years and the normal maintenance manpower
for a fleet of airplanes was several hundred people. All
of whom are five times cheaper in China, and the
equipment, tools maintenance stands, buildings, all
cheaper in China.


Your uncle probably didn't fly Boeings or Airbuses
internationally. Those companies require quite strict
procedures or they will call off all bets.

Nope. The companies that make airplanes usually offer a
number of what one might call "standard" versions, for
example number of passenger seats or number of crew
positions. Indonesia for example bought Boeing aircraft with
only two crew positions when other companies were buying
three crew configurations.

And once you buy the thing, test flown and accepted, the
aircraft belongs to you and Boeing or Airbus no longer have
anything to say about it.


The air traffic regulator in the respective countries has a
word to say about that. They usually require maintenance per
the book, per manufacturer's instructions. There is no "Oh,
let's use that aftermarket part here because the original is
too expensive". You don't follow those rules, you lose cert.
Some countries are a bit loose here and then it can happen (and
has) that the FAA prohibits their aircraft from coming into US
air space. Rightfully so.


Nope again. Yes various countries do attempt to control the
quality (for want of a better word) of aircraft flying into their
country but "after market" parts are not forbidden as innumerable
different manufacturers make airplane parts.


Only if approved for type and model. Supplemental Type Certificate
or STC. I know a little about this stuff because I am sometimes
designing electronics for aircraft and while doing that I am a
consultant to third party companies, not to an aircraft
manufacturer (except once) .


What does happen is that all aircraft parts must be approved - I
think that they call it "type approved" for aircraft use - and as
long as that is documented then there is no question that it can
be used.


See?

[...]


When I was in Indonesia we were approached by a group of
Indonesian Airforce people to see if we could improve the
maintenance on their helicopters. We approached the
helicopter makers about parts prices and were referred to
their S.E.A. representative who, in effect, told us to get
lost as they already hade a very nice arrangement to sell
parts to the Indonesian air force at prices much higher then
they were selling to private helicopter companies in the
region.


It does not explain a 5-10x factor between US and Chinese
shipping costs. There is more going on, way deeper than
equipment-related.

Firstly you are saying "shipping costs" which imply moving
substantial amounts of freight, trans-oceanic, by air or sea
which is determined primarily by supply and demand, when what
you are talking about is sending mail, rates for which is
determined by the government of the country in which the mail is
posted.


Mail = shipping. When some buys a bearing for a vehcile front wheel
or whatever in China it must be shipped. They generally use China
Post for that. Which charges a small fractions of the cost to the
shipper as the US Post Office does in the other direction. _That_
is the problem. This was greatly aggravated by the stupid decision
to no longer offer surface mail overseas.


Yes, because China is subsidizing the cost of shipping.


That is what I am suspecting.


... Neither this
president nor this administration is going to subsidize your shipping
overseas. Not with USPS sucking-dry the general fund.


If they are subsidizing then the US is justified in slapping a tariff on
incoming goods via China Post in order to level the playing field. Simple.


And why should I, the American public (I'm putting on my MAGA hat),
pay more taxes to lower the cost of your shipping to China? You
should pay what it costs and pass it on as a business expense. Or, as
in the case of real businesses, you ship via container and pay the
charge.

The easy way of equalizing the imbalance is to apply a tariff to
incoming Chinese goods equal to the difference in shipping costs.


Exactly. And Trump is the first president in years to hint at that.


Hey, maybe I'll give that idea to The Donald the next time I see him
on the golf course. The answer is not making shipping cheap for you
and causing the USPS to swirl further down the deficit drain.


He already knows but fiorst has to deal with a nut case east of China.

I don't think he knows much of anything, really. One hopes he has good advisers (this week). Trade and tax policy is extremely complicated and accounts (at least in part) for many of the wars fought by this nation -- even before it was a nation, e.g. Barbary Pirates exacting "tariffs," import duty on tea, etc., etc. You don't tweet those kinds of policies. And if you were a true conservative, you'd be saying "why is the government running a postal service anyway? Shouldn't that be private market?" Then if you were a true free-marketer, you would ****-can all duties, tariffs and other impediments to trade. If that meant you, as some tiny manufacturer, lost overseas business or went out of business, then so be it. It's a mountain-lion-eat-mountain-lion world out there. It is not a fair place, and it never has been.

Jay, really, what do you know about trade and tax policies? That is hardly your specialty I would warrant.

I was the North American expert on the UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG) for about a day, or maybe or a week -- because of a footnote in one of my cases. http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950412u1.html

I get involved in trade and tax policy only incidentally. I have to get involved in the Jones Act and flagging issues, which has gotten into the news lately with the devastation in Puerto Rico, foreign supply of fuel to vessels. Mega Yachts made in Germany. This and that. http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...9/13-35163.pdf

You wanna talk about the wacky Ninth Circuit, try arguing to former Cheif Judge Kozinski. It's like getting a half-hour prostate exam. That was going to the USSC before we settled. I was proud of the cert petition in that case.

I don't do any real tariff work except that I had to pay a duty for some wheels I bought from Wiggle before DHL would deliver them. What a rip-off! Order from PBK -- they tend to skip the whole duty thing.

I've had to deal with the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act suing Chinese corporations who are all state owned. Don't expect to get a quick settlement with some Chinese OE supplier or Chinese insurer.

Totally OT, but what I find fascinating about suing the Chinese is that they never speak English at deposition or trial. All testimony is given with great effort through an interpreter -- who always seems to be the wrong interpreter, Cantonese versus Mandarin, etc., etc. Anyway, the second the guy (always a guy) is done, and he's walking out with his attorney, I can hear him speaking English and saying things like "hey, let's go get some hookers."

Something you might be a great deal more educated about - exactly what is the limit in small claims court in California, Alameda County? It looks like the insurance company for that woman who ran into and totaled my parked car is simply planning on doing nothing at all.

That would require work on my part -- and I'm prohibited from practicing law in California. It should be available on the internet. It is! http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/s...ims/file.shtml

-- Jay Beattie.


While I do not always disagree (just usually) with Alex
Kosinsky, isn't his reputation and body of work enough to
get a summary decision on change of venue? He's a flake.

What are you talking about Andrew? Kozinsky retired in 2014.


Thanks I did not know that.
(I think the nation is better off)

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Friday, September 29, 2017 at 3:06:48 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
snip

What are you talking about Andrew? Kozinsky retired in 2014.


Thanks I did not know that.
(I think the nation is better off)

He didn't retire. He simply finished his term as chief judge.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 9/29/2017 6:41 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2017 at 3:06:48 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
snip

What are you talking about Andrew? Kozinsky retired in 2014.


Thanks I did not know that.
(I think the nation is better off)

He didn't retire. He simply finished his term as chief judge.

-- Jay Beattie.


Well, thanks to you more.
I can't say I follow Federal judicial terms closely.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 11:09:48 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-09-19 07:06, wrote:
I'm pretty sensitive to component prices since I have to build everything up from scratch.

One thing that has become clear lately is that buying from an on-line store directly is becoming cheaper than buying from Ebay or Amazon.


This topped it all: The two paint brushes I ordered from Hong Kong via
EBay on Sep-19 were shipped on Sep-20 and arrived on Sep-28, via
airmail. For all of $3 including shipping. I couldn't ship them to the
other side of town even if I gave them away.

Nobody can tell me that there isn't anything lopsided about the
conditions that Chinese merchants get versus those that US merchants get.


Of course there is. But remember, mail rates are set by the country
from which the item is mailed. Or to put it another way, why are U.S.
mail rates so high?

--
Cheers,

John B.

Best then shifting costs to consumers n walk

On 2017-09-29 18:51, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 11:09:48 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-09-19 07:06, wrote:
I'm pretty sensitive to component prices since I have to build everything up from scratch.

One thing that has become clear lately is that buying from an on-line store directly is becoming cheaper than buying from Ebay or Amazon.


This topped it all: The two paint brushes I ordered from Hong Kong via
EBay on Sep-19 were shipped on Sep-20 and arrived on Sep-28, via
airmail. For all of $3 including shipping. I couldn't ship them to the
other side of town even if I gave them away.

Nobody can tell me that there isn't anything lopsided about the
conditions that Chinese merchants get versus those that US merchants get.


Of course there is. But remember, mail rates are set by the country
from which the item is mailed. Or to put it another way, why are U.S.
mail rates so high?


There can only be one reason. The Chinese are subsidizing it and the
government is paying for a large chunk of operatingh the China Post
aircraft or any hired air transport.

This would be unfair trade practices which can be acted upon by other
countries. Just like an aircraft manufacturer just got slapped with a
hefty tariff even while a trade agreement was (still) in place.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/