US targets trade loophole used by ecommerce groups Temu and Shein
ft.com
ft.com
I don’t believe for a second that their fentanyl interceptions will sufficiently improve otherwise.
The reality is that the margin is so strong, other methods (if small individual parcels were even a factor) would fill any gap. Even more interceptions would just lead to more shipments. That’s how good the margins are.
Correct. "The majority of precursor chemicals for illicitly manufactured fentanyl come from China and are synthesized into fentanyl in Mexico. Fentanyl is then smuggled across the border into the United States" [1].
That said, "China remains the primary source of fentanyl and fentanyl-related substances trafficked through international mail and express consignment operations environment, as well as the main source for all fentanyl-related substances trafficked into the United States" [2].
> which makes it to the US through the wide open southern border
No. "Most of the illicit fentanyl coming across the U.S.-Mexico border is smuggled through official ports of entry" [3].
[1] https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1953
[2] https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/DEA_GOV_DIR-...
[3] https://www.npr.org/2023/08/07/1192557904/part-1-investigati...
"Last year, we seized about 700 pounds of fentanyl," Modlin stated. "That was encountered – 52% of that, so the majority of that – was encountered in the field. So that is predominantly being backpacked across the border."
And that seizure is from only a vanishing minority of migrants who were searched. Tens of thousands of illegal immigrants are just sneak in without any checking. The formal ports of entry undergo far more validation and hence more stuff is found.
But where’s the fun in that.
The real fun lies in dehumanizing the illegal immigrants so one can hopefully start a pogrom against them. Now that’s fun!
The stuff they didn't catch is the problem, which they can only estimate.
One TEU can weigh up to 67,500 lbs [1]. Humans can’t carry more than 20 to 30% of their body weight for meaningful distances. To rival the capacity of a single container, assuming only really fit men, you’d need 1,350 backpackers (assuming 200 lb men carrying 50 lbs each, which is ridiculous).
If every one of the nation’s 2mm illegal crossers were a fit man carrying their maximum load on a backpack, it would total to the tonnage of 1,500 containers. The Port of LA processed over 500x that in June [2]. The throughput at a signal American port is 3+ orders of magnitude more than could possibly be carried by every illegal border crosser by backpack.
It’s wild for anyone with a basic sense of numeracy to believe that humans carrying backpacks are bringing a material amount of anything into this country, let alone a product for mass consumption.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-foot_equivalent_unit
[2] https://www.portoflosangeles.org/references/2024-news-releas...
No. This should be plainly obvious for anyone who understands the scale and economies of logistics. If fentanyl were mostly backpacked in, it wouldn’t be a national problem.
Copied from another comment and sourced from NPR
52% of Tucson’s Border Patrol seizures were on the field. Like, 100% of the wine I drank this afternoon was delicious; that doesn’t mean there is no terrible wine.
What people who face an addiction needs is help, not being shamed.
Drugs are shameful, to the degree that they impact your life.
Some of us are so oppposed to shame that we justify and defend the most self destructive habits. You should be ashamed for that.
But why is drug usage shameful? Most drug users are responsible.
* Harm to the body
* Harm to the brain
* It can be expensive (sometimes disastrously)
* Opportunity costs, both of time and money
* Drugs alter your behavior, sometimes not in polite ways
* Addiction make you dependent on something outside of yourself, a literal substance.
* Many drugs leave you unable to work or operate heavy machinery (cars)
* Some addicts prioritize their drug over anything, even family or friends.
* Some addicts with steal to fund their habit.
Some people make it work, there are high functioning stoners out there, there are people who need painkillers for chronic pain. These people don’t let a drug affect their lives as negatively as the alternative.
But being a dependent addict isn’t virtuous.
No one is saying its virtuous.
If you're in endless pain, go for it.
If you're still functional while getting high, all the power to you.
If you can drink nightly and still operate, that's great.
But it's not a virtue, and that substance will be what you reach for in your darkest moments. Maybe that's a good thing, if it doesn't impact your life in worse ways than the alternative.
I mean if you doubt the claims then you are advocating for spreading child pornography.
In other words, the loophole exists for a reason. If you "close" it you may cause good in one area but harm in others.
So at the very least one should move slowly to at least understand the issue properly, beyond just the obvious exploitation.
For example (and since I know nothing about small parcel imports, I'll use something I'm more familiar with) there's often a knee-jerk reaction to the exploitation of IP laws (trademark, copyright, patents). Some suggest killing it all. Some favor dumping patents but keeping the rest, and so on.
But any change will have "unexpected" consequences. These tools are used by businesses of all sizes and means. Killing copyright because you dont like Microsoft would equally kill things like Free Software (because it would invalidate the freedoms enforced by the GPL.)
So while "immediate action" seems like a good thing at first glance, it seldom works out that way. Throwing tarrifs on imported goods protects local jobs, but equally drives up prices (aka inflation).
So charitably I interpret "intentionally not neighbors changed" to "being changed intentionally, with care to achieve the desired effect not some unwelcome side effect.
The point is a good one but the example was chosen a little quickly. It'd kill the GPL because the GPL is part of copyright law. That much is simple to see. But it'd probably be a net win for user freedom.
Right now, people choose to use free software either because it is good (and would see no difference if the GPL disappeared) or because it is free (and, again, would make decisions the same way in a no-IP world - only use software where the source is available). So the only risk is people copying an OSS project as free riders, withholding source changes and using some sort of embrace-extend-extinguish strategy.
But EEE relies on proprietary extensions, so that strategy probably doesn't work without the support of IP law. The OS projects could clone features back in. Proprietary providers could fight back with a client server model - but AWS for example already does that so it isn't really new and the equilibrium is generally to contribute upstream anyway.
I would expect software freedoms to improve if we lost the GPL as part of a big removal of IP laws. There'd be tactical instances where people were worse off, maybe. But strategically the OSS community would just be in a better position. They can keep doing what they do, it is harder to sue them and difficult to profit off their work in ways that aren't already possible.
Without copyright, the GPL wouldn't need to exist because the freedoms it protects would be impossible to suppress.
Absent IP, ceteris paribus, you'd run as much code as possible on your servers and obfuscate what you deliver to a client. There would be an entire industry in producing technical DRM.
Obfuscation only gets you so far. But faithfully recovering the original source code is not really the point. Even heavily obfuscated code is useful and can be worked with since in the end the program is still doing what it's supposed to do.
Those other licenses do not require republishing, so it seems that authors of OSS value the additional republication requirements provided by the GPL license. Even in under the current copyright regime, one can (perhaps other-than-legally) decompile binary to recover source-like code, and then launder and reinject the learned improvements back into the open source project.
And the GPL license does not universally grant patent rights back to the source project.
The FSF believes that closed-source software should not exist at all. Their license is explicitly designed to make it completely incompatible with closed source software. Updates to the license (GPLv3, AGPL etc) are specifically designed to close loopholes which closed-source companies were exploiting.
OSS by contrast sees Open Source as a public good, but lives in a world that tolerates closed-source entities. It's possible to use an MIT licensed gzip library in a closed-source program, with GPL you cannot.
OSS says "Open Source us better, but closed Source is better than nothing." The FSF says "it should be Free, or you should not use it at all."
Both OSS and Free licenses mandate that users should be able to build binaries from Source. If I make a change to the gzip library then my users are entitled to those changes. (There's no "giving back", only giving forward.)
It's still a form of proprietary lock-in similar to not offering data export, but it's not an unsurmountable hurdle anymore.
Why not? You can decompile a cookie to try to see what method was used to make it, but Nabisco or whoever still treats that method and the ingredient ratios as trade secrets. In fact, the whole idea of trade secrets are things that are kept secret because IP protections don't cover them.
I say that because everytime the topic of “closing a loophole” comes up, HNers act like it’s metaphysically impossible. But if you just think a little bit more, you’d realize that the existence of a loophole shows that the said law is specifically NOT covering the edge cases, but is covering the general cases without problems. Hence, fixing it would most likely affect the exploited case, not the beneficial case.
Corporate tax avoidance is a great example of this. The only feature you need your laws to have to facilitate corporate tax avoidance is the ability to incur a deductible expense to an offshore entity. The only thing corporate tax law loophole closing ever achieves is to make corporate tax avoidance procedures more complicated, thus making them only accessible to more sophisticated tax avoiders. There is no conceivable way of closing these “loopholes” without extreme protectionism or isolationism. It would basically require ending globalization or at least removing your country from the globalized economy. A solution that most people would find completely unacceptable.
The problem is just that the ones (politicians and companies) writing the laws are the ones who want the loopholes. The lawyers who could work on improving laws, are instead helping companies find creative avoidance techniques.
This unrealistic wishful thinking you seem to be exhibiting is something I think politicians intentionally prey on. If some politician can convince you that it is possible to “fix this”, but without the all the obviously mandatory costs and tradeoffs, then they can also potentially convince you that they can and will do it. This particular policy issue has been a part of many political platforms, yet nobody has ever “fixed it”, because it cannot be fixed (at least not without also ruining a lot of other things).
> This unrealistic wishful thinking
Quite the contrary, for some reason you seem to have a cognitive dissonance about the sheer complexity of tax laws. The loophole is not as simple as “anything can be offshored” - there’s a significant nuance involved in what is possible even now.
This is also the reason most developed economies have given up on regulating transfer pricing any more than they already have, and instead the strategy has shifted to trying to get the tax havens to implement or increase their corporate taxes. That’s why the “global minimum corporate tax rate” idea has recently emerged, and why the EU uses their black and grey lists to coerce foreign jurisdictions to write new tax laws. This strategy is arguably more effective, but still a complete failure, because you have some tax haven jurisdictions that simply ignore the pressure, and other tax havens are simply never sanctioned because they have sufficient leverage in the global economy to avoid the attention entirely.
It is very literally a choice between corporate tax, or globalization. There is no way to have both.
Governments do it just fine for normal individuals. Small to medium businesses also pay their taxes pretty fairly. It says something profound about the system, if the avoidance needs large complicated structures to do so.
Something something lack of moral compass.
Real people also manage to avoid their taxes all the time. People complain about the rich not paying their taxes every day. People can also offshore their income in mostly the same way a company can, with the only additional complication being residency requirements. I just finished watching the F1 qualifying, a sport that has 1 Monegasque athlete, but nearly half of its currently active athlete living in Monaco.
If you want a system of global tax governance, then you’d need a global government. Something we don’t have, will not have, and a lot of people tend to be especially resentful towards any of the efforts to create one (or something that behaves like one).
A solution could be to tax offshore expenses with the difference in tax rates, i.e., min(0, corporate tax rate -destination company's corporate tax rate)%. That would eliminate the advantage of lower tax rates at the destination.
Another way would be to allow deducting only min(100, 100 - corporate tax rate + destination company's corporate tax rate)% of the offshore expenses. That still provides benefits for shuffling profits offshore, but the origin location gets some of it.
Also, aside from the fact that this policy would fail, what you’re describing is a rather extreme import tarrif, which is a highly protectionist policy.
I don't think that follows.
Certainly that is true sometimes, but sometimes fixing edge cases can mess up the general case. Or at least its not always immediately obvious how to close the loop hole without unintended consequences.
If customs officers spend two minutes per parcel, then it makes sense to exempt parcels for which the expected revenue doesn't even cover one minute's labour cost.
Where I live, parcels with an expected revenue below the price of a cup of espresso are exempt. The definition is different, of course.
The moment things change, like minimum wage, oil prices, input costs - anything produced (even partially locally) jumps in cost. We have been seeing this happen constantly over the past decade.
- Consumer giants from Starbucks to General Mills have one big sales problem: China. Starbucks reported China same-store sales dropped by 14% in the quarter ended June 30, far steeper than the 2% decline in the U.S. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/07/us-consumer-giants-have-one-...
- Foreign investors pulled a record $15 billion out of China last quarter https://fortune.com/asia/2024/08/12/foreign-investors-pull-r...
- China’s startup ecosystem has almost completely collapsed in the last 5 years. https://x.com/alecstapp/status/1834201320212898179?mx=2
- IBM Decides To Move R&D Out Of China https://www.forbes.com/sites/miltonezrati/2024/09/07/ibm-dec...
- Microsoft shuts down physical retail presence in mainland China https://www.retail-systems.com/rs/Microsoft_Shuts_Down_Physi...
- The world’s biggest luxury brands are hurting as Chinese shoppers rein in spending https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/26/business/lvmh-luxury-firms-ch...
- Japan’s Companies Sour on China After Years of Brushing Off Risk https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-09-08/japan-inc...
Consumer spending as dropped dramatically, deflation is occurring, population is decreasing millions per year and set to accelerate, foreign direct investment is down 10x, inept foreign policy has strengthened China’s neighbors relationship with the US, entrepreneurs are demoralized, etc.
So a decrease? Or is this saying that after 10 years its 1billion/year?
https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/temu-shein-spd...
They don't collect import duty though, because we've had a free trade agreement with China since 2008.
Anyways, this would be good for consumers, since Shein and Temu products found to contain high levels of toxic chemicals https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/08/14/s...
Being a US company doesn’t stop them from being filled with imitation/knock-off goods from fly by night companies.