Lord Trump's Gambit

[Tim the Tank Nut]

despite the title of the thread I have an honest question.

Much has been made about tariffs on Chinese productions.  There are reasonable points on both sides.  If (when) Donald calls me for advice here is my suggestion for him.  Let's hold of on tariffs for a moment and focus on the Postal Service.  Currently the system has the postal service covering a massive amount of the freight expenses on goods shipped from China.  I can get free shipping on a two dollar network cable from mainland China.  Every taxpayer subsidizes this.  Why not put a stop to it?  Would it be within the authority of the office?

Postal Service reform looks like a sure thing to me...

[Tim the Tank Nut]

the amount of expense bringing product from Mainland China to the US is considerable.  Making the freight charges part of the deal seems like an obvious step.  I can't see any good reason for the Postal Service to subsidize that expense.

[sunday]

30 minutes ago, Tim the Tank Nut said:

the amount of expense bringing product from Mainland China to the US is considerable.  Making the freight charges part of the deal seems like an obvious step.  I can't see any good reason for the Postal Service to subsidize that expense.

Perhaps the USPS only deals with in-country transport.

[Ivanhoe]

"Free Shipping" as seen by the consumer does not mean the delivery service is providing free shipping to the shipper.

IMHO all shipping costs are baked into the purchase price. Online retailers that offer free shipping have probably reached a volume of shipping business at which they can negotiate a sweetheart deal with the shipping organization.

 

[Ivanhoe]

One can see this by spending some quality time on ammoseek.com.

Smaller mom-and-pop online retailers charge $20+ for shipping a small box of ammo. Larger retailers offer "free shipping over $99" because they are doing $100,000 or more of shipping business with their preferred common carrier.

 

[Ivanhoe]

As for tariffs, tariffs can net out positive in the short run*, given the proviso that the federal government acts in good faith and well-informed decisionmaking.

When was the last time that happened?

 

* Trump pretty clearly used them as a bare-knuckle negotiation tool.

 

[Tim the Tank Nut]

I'm certain that I have read that China has a particular deal on freight with the USPS.  I don't recall the specifics but one of our vendors discussed it in great detail regarding a Chinese paint line.  Our order minimums from China direct were so low as to be beyond belief.  The explanation was that the US was picking up the tab.

We declined the line based on its origin.

[Ssnake]

7 hours ago, Tim the Tank Nut said:

despite the title of the thread I have an honest question.

I can get free shipping on a two dollar network cable from mainland China.  Every taxpayer subsidizes this.  Why not put a stop to it? 

Okay, I'll bite. We're talking about 250g of Ethernet patch cable, approximately speaking, right?

A standard (=TEU) shipping container's maximum transport capacity (by weight, not volume) is 20,320kg (gross), about 18,000kg (tara). So, you can cram about 72,000 patch cables into one such container. According to this chart, the current rate for a shipping container is around 3,000 USD for a 40ft container, let's say then 2,300.- for our TEU:

Therefore, the cost of shipping one such patch cable from mainlan China to a west coast US port, per cable, is 3.2 cents. No subsidies. It really is that cheap. Whether I'm off by 200% in that estimate (and I think the margin of error is probably under 50%) doesn't matter. It's under ten cents. It might be under two cents. You can reform US Postal as much as you want, it won't matter. Once that the cables have arrived in a US warehouse, it's all about domestic shipping costs, not sea trade.

[Stuart Galbraith]

To put it in perspective, ive heard it often costs more to ship product from UK ports to where its sold, than it actually costs to ship it from China on board a container ship. Which when you consider how small the UK is, is truly remarkable. Container ships really are the most efficient form of transport of goods devised by man. To the point where you wonder why the Chinese were ever bothering with trying to move trainloads of goods to Europe.

[urbanoid]

1 minute ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

To put it in perspective, ive heard it often costs more to ship product from UK ports to where its sold, than it actually costs to ship it from China on board a container ship. Which when you consider how small the UK is, is truly remarkable. Container ships really are the most efficient form of transport of goods devised by man. To the point where you wonder why the Chinese were ever bothering with trying to move trainloads of goods to Europe.

Because they want an alternative for a possible war (that they will start, but that's another thing) and naval blockade. 

Planning for emergencies like that is what serious countries do, shocking as it may be to us living in the rather unserious ones.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well perhaps, but they are showing distinct optimism if they believe they will still be able to trade with Europe, whilst enduring a US imposed Naval Embargo. But of course yes, just because its a dumb plan, doesnt mean it isnt the plan.

[urbanoid]

They'll be able to trade with Russia and Central Asia. Europe? Maybe, maybe not. Without infrastructure the idea wouldn't even be on the table. 

Seeing how Europe is doing quite a bit of trade with Russia anyway, I wouldn't say it's a total folly for them to think that. 

[futon]

In 10 years from now, the PLAN may equal the USN.

In just the years 2020 to 2023, the PLAN added eight of the 13,000 ton Type 55 destroyers and thirteen of the 7,500 ton Type 52D destroyers. 

That's a four-four.

Four times the total UK destroyer force completed in just four years. 

[seahawk]

48 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Because they want an alternative for a possible war (that they will start, but that's another thing) and naval blockade. 

Planning for emergencies like that is what serious countries do, shocking as it may be to us living in the rather unserious ones.

Not even their own war. Just imagine a war in Egypt that closes the Suez and the Red Sea or a conflict in the Indian Ocean. Or even another global pandemic. Having options is always a good thing.

[futon]

 

[Ssnake]

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

you wonder why the Chinese were ever bothering with trying to move trainloads of goods to Europe

Not all goods are best shipped by sea. It's the cheapest method, but certainly not the fastest. Air transportation doesn't work for high mass and/or high volume, and even where it does the costs are often not competitve. So, rail is the sweet spot between the container behemoth that needs two weeks, and a few m³ in the cargo hold of a 747 flying from Singapore to Frankfurt in 10 hours. If you need a lot of something delivered within 100 hours after it's been dumped from the conveyor belt into a shipping box, there's a Shenzen-Düsseldorf railway line for you.

[17thfabn]

15 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

To put it in perspective, ive heard it often costs more to ship product from UK ports to where its sold, than it actually costs to ship it from China on board a container ship. Which when you consider how small the UK is, is truly remarkable. Container ships really are the most efficient form of transport of goods devised by man.

Makes sense. Once those products hit the ports in the U.S. / UK/ Europe they have to be broken down and sent to the various retailers. That is a lot of handling costs.

If I remember correctly transporting by ship is the second most efficient transport method after pipeline. Of course pipeline only works for materials such as crude oil, natural gas, refined gas and diesel etc.

[Josh]

10 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Not all goods are best shipped by sea. It's the cheapest method, but certainly not the fastest. Air transportation doesn't work for high mass and/or high volume, and even where it does the costs are often not competitve. So, rail is the sweet spot between the container behemoth that needs two weeks, and a few m³ in the cargo hold of a 747 flying from Singapore to Frankfurt in 10 hours. If you need a lot of something delivered within 100 hours after it's been dumped from the conveyor belt into a shipping box, there's a Shenzen-Düsseldorf railway line for you.

Train transport is apparently cost effective for electronics and high end perishable foods from what I’ve read.

[Ol Paint]

Rather than speculate on efficiency:

Maersk Triple E containership - 192,000LT deadweight tonnage, 67,660hp installed horsepower running 85%MCR at 0.275lb/hp-hr at 20 kts consumes 2,534gph delivering 1,752 miles per gallon of fuel per long ton of freight.

100 car double-stack freight train - 4,196LT, 10000hp at 85% MCR burning 0.370 lb/hp-hr at 79mph consumes 428gph delivering 773 mpg per long ton of freight. 

Standard semi @55k lb cargo - 300hp Cat C9 at the 50% burning 11.1gph at 70mph delivers 157.4 long ton-miles/gallon.  (As a sanity check, this means the truck is getting about 6.3 miles per gallon.)

CSX calculates the train efficiency as 520 ton-miles/gallon and the truck as 134 ton-miles per gallon.  According to this link https://www.csx.com/index.cfm/about-us/the-csx-advantage/fuel-efficiency/

And, just for more entertainment, a 747-8F flying Anchorage to Chicago has a max payload of 299,210lb and will consume 19,506 gallons of Jet-A, for a effective delivery of 16.93 long tons per mile per gallon.  https://www.aircraft-commerce.com/wp-content/uploads/aircraft-commerce-docs/Freight/2013/ISSUE89_FRT.pdf

Doug

Edited May 20, 2024 by Ol Paint
Punctuation.

[Stuart Galbraith]

On 5/19/2024 at 8:15 AM, futon said:

In 10 years from now, the PLAN may equal the USN.

In just the years 2020 to 2023, the PLAN added eight of the 13,000 ton Type 55 destroyers and thirteen of the 7,500 ton Type 52D destroyers. 

That's a four-four.

Four times the total UK destroyer force completed in just four years. 

As Ive said before, there is a price for building so much shipping in one go, and its one the US discovered in the early 1970's, and the 2000's. Its going to all go obsolete all at once, and its entirely possible they wont have the yard capacity to replace it. At least, it seems to me inconceivable they are going to have the fiscal backing to keep expanding for the next 30 years. Not even the USSR and the US managed to build up their fleets for that long. So years, inevitably will have to convert to civilian shipping, or go bust.

Of course, if they have a short victorious war with Taiwan and America, then so what, but my guess is they want a navy as a bargaining stick. And like all navies, it will be prone to overnight obsolecence. See Dreadnought.

I daresay we could knock out Type 12 frigates if we wanted to, but the world is changing. Im not sure it makes sense to invest in large fleets anymore. Stealthy and drone equipped ones would be a better expenditure on their part. To me, it looks rather more like a political statement than a military one. Pretty much the same kind of thing that their expenditure on their strategic nuclear forces.

[futon]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

As Ive said before, there is a price for building so much shipping in one go, and its one the US discovered in the early 1970's, and the 2000's. Its going to all go obsolete all at once, and its entirely possible they wont have the yard capacity to replace it. At least, it seems to me inconceivable they are going to have the fiscal backing to keep expanding for the next 30 years. Not even the USSR and the US managed to build up their fleets for that long. So years, inevitably will have to convert to civilian shipping, or go bust.

Of course, if they have a short victorious war with Taiwan and America, then so what, but my guess is they want a navy as a bargaining stick. And like all navies, it will be prone to overnight obsolecence. See Dreadnought.

I daresay we could knock out Type 12 frigates if we wanted to, but the world is changing. Im not sure it makes sense to invest in large fleets anymore. Stealthy and drone equipped ones would be a better expenditure on their part. To me, it looks rather more like a political statement than a military one. Pretty much the same kind of thing that their expenditure on their strategic nuclear forces.

Yep, I've seen that said before. I don't think so though. No one else is going to build new fleets that make other fleets obsolete. When the Dreadnaught emerged, the successors were pouring in. The successors of current ships are not. The pace other other countries can't syddenly overstep the PLAN. Constellation.. low rate and delayed. New destroyers and frigates from Euope and so on are all small batches and stretch into a timescale of 2030s. AUKUS nuke sub is 2045.. lol. The deciding factor will be the health of the Chinese economy and how well a) it develops its own advanced tenchnology and b) how well countries that do containment can prevent leaks. If those three don't go bad for the PRC, I don't think they have to worry about suddenly being outstriped in numbers of new advance ships. 

Besides, they'll want to have the experience in operating a large navy. Put the whole thing under joint commands, and be far reaching. If they wait until low rate production finally gets them a big navy to practice with, then they won't hace the ability to practice with one for a long time from now still. 

But since they have one now, they practice sending out carrier groups for practice. First practice groups that were centered on the Liaoning consisted of just three ships. Then four. The frigates swapped out with destroyers. 5 ship group, 6 ship group, Type 55s join take a spot. Type 903 replenishers swapped out for Type 901s AOEs. 

For nearly 10 years now I've seen this upward trajectory. 

When the has come to where Japan is swapping out non-offensive 200km range anti-ship missiles for 400km to 1000km range ones, and now is getting full diplomatic support for Izumo and Kaga to be become full light carriers... something has occured. That was the emerging might of the PLAN. 

And the reason it waa all possibly because there is such much in the west that's of the "no, ur wrong" disposition, and other sort of near-sighted kneejerk reacting. Way back since the Lioaning was a rust bucket to be converted into a carrier. 

Over the years, know what else I've seen?

"They'll never make that many"

"They'll never have a proper carrier"

"They'll never have AOE"

"They'll never have good naval helicopter"

"They'll never have enough amohibious air lift"

 

Now it's "it's bad to have a lot"

l..  o.. l..

 

Try to enjoy the British carrier coming out here with allies. If not, it just becomes another example of a West failure recognized and openly stated but not to the actual consequential effect that it really has, this failure of recognition.

Just like "the Russians won't actually invade"

 

Come on Stuart..

[Stuart Galbraith]

Reading cold war history, one is struck so often by the prophets of doom whom almost always were never right. I see no reason why the pending Cold War with China is going to be any different. Yes, a big shiny fleet they can have. But that isnt the same as going on operations with it, or having any easy means of maintaining it. Even the Americans struggle with their capability to maintain the fleet they have. And the chinese are not, because they are all conquering 20 foot high Asian supermen? They cant even maintain their housing market, dominion of the seas I think is still a very long way out of reach.

Of course, its entirely in the interests of the worlds navies, not to mention the shipbuilders, to pretend otherwise.

[futon]

Heh

(*^^*)

[Sardaukar]

Chinese interest in their navy is very understandable.

They are very much depending on maritime trade and strategic imports. 

[futon]

Imagine a PLAN + JMSDF force

(*^^*)