US targets trade loophole used by ecommerce groups Temu and Shein(ft.com)
ft.com
US targets trade loophole used by ecommerce groups Temu and Shein
https://www.ft.com/content/2f07510b-d2c6-4bae-bae3-aa5dfa8bd796
106 comments
I doubt more than 2% of the fentanyl in the US comes direct from China. China just ships to Mexico, which makes it to the US through the wide open southern border.
> doubt more than 2% of the fentanyl in the US comes direct from China. China just ships to Mexico
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...
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...
Quote from NPR article
"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.
"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.
Perhaps you should also quote the part from the same article that states it’s American citizens doing the smuggling, not illegal immigrants
One can agree that illegal immigration is a problem that needs to be stemmed.
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!
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!
If the border is open it doesn’t matter who is moving.
Are you implying you believe the US southern border is open?
During the months where there are an average of 10k illegal crossings per day, some would argue that the border is open enough to be porous to about a towns worth of humans per day.
There is, by definition, no illegal crossings when the border is open. So, no, I think your assertion is very ill informed
In good faith, when people mean open, they mean unenforced to the point of 10k people per day strolling in.
No they don’t. There’s actually been a huge problem in that many people come to the border because they’ve been told it is open, when in fact, it is not. The myth that it is open is amplified by the American right constantly claiming it is open on the news.
> tens of thousands of illegal immigrants are just sneak in without any checking
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...
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...
This stat in isolation doesn't tell you much, because it's based on what was caught.
The stuff they didn't catch is the problem, which they can only estimate.
The stuff they didn't catch is the problem, which they can only estimate.
Majority of the fentanyl was backpacked in. I am not sure if you are trying to make the point that even though the US Government has failed to effectively stop the flow of illegal immigrants and cartel mules flowing drugs across the southern border, fentanyl is coming through official ports of entry illegally. Honestly not sure why it matters.
Of course it matters. The solutions are completely different.
GP was making a political point not a practical one
> Majority of the fentanyl was backpacked in
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.
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.
Quote from NPR article
"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."
Copied from another comment and sourced from NPR
Copied from another comment and sourced from NPR
Denominator error. “Close to 90% of that fentanyl is seized at ports of entry.”
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.
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.
Well, that's still technically "open". If the border was hermetically sealed (and boats/subs that tried to circumvent it were sunk) that would stop. Pesky international agreements however.
It is true that the United States could treat Mexico the way South Korea treats North Korea. I think that would be a terrible idea for extremely obvious reasons.
You only need to enforce like 1% of the illegal crossings and the 1% facilitating the economy of crossings will be gone.
The US does that! We have border control agents! They regularly apprehend migrants attempting illegal crossings.
True, I should’ve stipulated the right 1%. Those orchestrating the cartel coyotes, etc.
[deleted]
Is this what you meant though?
I'm not following your question-- unless you're confused and think this person is the GP commenter.
[deleted]
I'm not saying this is necessarily accurate, but could it be inferred from the article that this loophole might act like a Denial of Service (DoS) attack on the mail inspection system? Similar to the overwhelming number of security log entries that no one reads?
Drugs, child porn and terrorism can be used as universal arguments
to "go to war", censorship, massive spending, etc etc.
and people will not ask for evidence or at least any
actual verifiable evidence.
I mean if you doubt the claims then you are advocating for spreading child pornography.
I mean if you doubt the claims then you are advocating for spreading child pornography.
Do US schools and media educate the public that taking drugs is dangerous, ruinous, self destructive, and shameful. I understand that the US in general favors personal freedom, but shouldn't there be some universal values, like don't take drugs?
There is nothing shameful about drug usage. It’s a part of being human.
What people who face an addiction needs is help, not being shamed.
What people who face an addiction needs is help, not being shamed.
I feel shame for our society every time I walk past drug addicted homeless people camped out on the sidewalk.
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.
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.
Yes, you should feel shame for society not helping these people.
But why is drug usage shameful? Most drug users are responsible.
But why is drug usage shameful? Most drug users are responsible.
Reasons I can think:
* 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.
* 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.
Yes, there are obviously negative things about doing drugs, just as there are positives. But that doesn’t make it shameful.
No one is saying its virtuous.
No one is saying its virtuous.
I'm saying it's shameful to the degree it impacts your life.
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.
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’ve been hearing about this for years. I have to assume it’s intentionally not being changed. Qui bono?
The problem with closing loopholes that are being exploited is that it can be hard to do without causing unwelcome side effects.
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.
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.
> Killing copyright because you dont like Microsoft would equally kill things like Free Software (because it would invalidate the freedoms enforced by the GPL.)
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.
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.
The word “loophole” usually means a bypass of a law/rule in its spirit due to its language, thus leading to a void / gray area of enforcement that is beneficial to the exploiter.
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.
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.
The possibility you’re not acknowledging is that the “spirit of the law” is trying to achieve something that cannot be done, or at least not done without massively modifying the way a system works to an unacceptable level. Law makers know this, but it’s not really a problem for them because they can write their bad law, leave it full of “loopholes” to be “exploited”, and then just cry about some loophole exploiting boogeyman to their constituents and donors as the reason their law making efforts have failed. If you wanted to be cynical you might even suggest that this is the desired outcome and a way of managing circumstances where donor and constituent interest are in conflict, or perhaps just a way of signalling that you’re delivering on a policy promise, when in reality you can’t.
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.
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.
I fully agree that these loopholes are intentional, but I definitely don’t think they’re unavoidable.
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.
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.
They’re not unavoidable, they can just potentially come at an unacceptable cost. In the corporate tax instance, literally the only thing you need to implement corporate tax avoidance is the ability to incur a deductible expense to an offshore company. No matter what other laws you write, if you can do that you can avoid corporate tax. If you can’t do that then you don’t have economic globalization (or you’re not participating in it at least).
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 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).
> the only thing you need to implement corporate tax avoidance is the ability to incur a deductible expense to an offshore company
> 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 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.
I own several companies that have a large pile of transfer pricing agreements, I’m very familiar with the nature and complexity of international tax laws. All corporate tax avoidance is, is incurring offshore expenses to shuffle profits offshore. As long as you can do that, there is literally no way to prevent the tax avoidance. The only thing you can do is make it more complicated.
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.
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.
The issue is neither corporate tax nor globalization, but the difference between corporate tax rates, which provides an incentive in the first place to shuffle profits offshore.
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.
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.
This is just a reinvention of the global minimum corporate tax effort, and it would fail for exactly the same reasons. Except, with the added benefit of making corporate tax avoidance procedures more complicated, without actually accomplishing anything (now you need to offshore your profits to a friendly high tax jurisdiction before offshoring them again to a low tax one).
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.
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.
Thanks for the insight!
Honestly, I just don’t buy it’s impossible to properly handle global taxation.
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.
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.
Then explain your solution for doing so, or show me a jurisdiction that has managed it and explain how. In reality no jurisdiction has ever achieved this, and for the reasons I have explained.
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).
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).
> 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.
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.
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.
Not always. Many times a loophole is something that exists as a logical consequence of other laws and regulations, and people (actually normally corporations) abuse those to their own benefit.
> Killing copyright because you dont like Microsoft would equally kill things like Free Software (because it would invalidate the freedoms enforced by the GPL.)
Without copyright, the GPL wouldn't need to exist because the freedoms it protects would be impossible to suppress.
Without copyright, the GPL wouldn't need to exist because the freedoms it protects would be impossible to suppress.
I'm not sure I see how that's true. The GPL puts a legal onus on modifiers to publish their modifications to the source with distributions of the software. Without copyright, any other party might be legally entitled to use and redistribute said modifications, but the modifier wouldn't be compelled to publish them.
That's not really the problem the GPL is intended to fight against. The source code can usually somehow be recovered via decompiling. But that's illegal in the presence of copyright, and even reverse engineering is a legal minefield further encumbered by patents.
It absolutely is a problem intended to be addressed by the GPL. That's why it is specified in the GPL that the source code means the code in its preferred form for making changes.
The idea is that without copyright there is no benefit in keeping the source code secret. It justs makes it a little bit harder for the customer to recover it. The GPL is ultimately intended to be customer-friendly, therefore sharing source code together with the build system is preferred.
It's still a form of proprietary lock-in similar to not offering data export, but it's not an unsurmountable hurdle anymore.
It's still a form of proprietary lock-in similar to not offering data export, but it's not an unsurmountable hurdle anymore.
> The idea is that without copyright there is no benefit in keeping the source code secret.
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.
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.
That's not really comparable; by reverse-engineering a cookie one would have to fight against entropy. The issue with software is that it's magnitudes easier to figure out any trade secrets inside of it. Reverse-engineering LLMs is much more akin to the cookie example.
> source code can usually somehow be recovered via decompiling
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.
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.
That's what the AGPL is designed to cover, and I think it's a major reason why a lot of software nowadays runs in the cloud. This is already a common way to circumvent the GPL.
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.
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.
This is already possible with GPL and copyright, and companies do it. Hence the SSPL.
Ok, so why is are GPL licenses so popular compared to BSD and MIT licenses? Why did the GNU foundation even bother writing a license at all?
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.
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 primary difference between GPL and OSS (BSD, MIT et al) is one of philosophy.
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.)
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.)
Exactly what I meant. GPL requires modifications to be released. That us precisely what differentiates it from public domain.
This "loophole" is likely to be motivated be the cost of processing small transactions.
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.
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 de minimas threshold allows for lots of things that would otherwise be difficult to document or not worth the effort, from grandma mailing a sweater for Christmas to getting a replacement part shipped directly.
This may have an inflationary effect. Perhaps they want to delay it as much as possible: Can we produce Milwaukee branded silicone spatulas 3-for-$6.99?
There is no “may” be inflationary. The entirety of Western civilization is built on and its future is predicated on a perpetual cheaper labor class both at home and abroad. That’s the only way the people can even survive right now.
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.
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.
That used to be true, but automation is real. Low cost labour simply delays automation.
I’m not sure if you’ve seen the news over the past decade, but most low cost labor countries like China are aeons ahead in automation. They’re just optimizing further and further, while the West just offshores and outsources everything.
Yes, that is why increasing tariffs and using that savings to subsidize automation in the US is the correct policy.
I don’t think tariffs will solve much, since people still want to buy those goods. USA just needs to start building ASAP - eat the initial losses, but put the effort in and make local manufacturing happen. Then it’s just classic capitalistic competition, which the USA claims to be the best at doing.
US is sensing China's severe weakness and finally going for the detachment from China. That's why the recent passage of bans for TikTok, DJI, 100% tariffs on BYD, and now closing this loophole.
- 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 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...
It's not China collapsing but local brands eclipsing western ones.
OP did not say collapsing; everyone agrees with the current situation of severe weakness.
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.
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.
> These shipments have increased from 140 million per year to more than 1 billion over 10 years
So a decrease? Or is this saying that after 10 years its 1billion/year?
So a decrease? Or is this saying that after 10 years its 1billion/year?
Over the past ten years, these shipments have increased from $140 million to over $1 billion annually.
I believe temu does not make use of such loophole in europe, and is still more successful than amazon
Here in Norway, the biggest issue is that China is still officially a developing country, so the Norwegian state subsidizes the freight cost. In practice it's cheaper too send a letter or parcel from China to Norway than doing the same within Norway.
It's the same in the US. If I'm in no hurry I often buy small electronic parts from China simply because the whole thing is cheaper than the cheapest shipping buying from a retailer in the US.
Wasn't all this UPU stuff written before every country had their own flag airline? China has their own airlines with routes to many places that could be hauling their parcels without the subsidies
Temu and Shein do use loopholes in Europe/Germany, at least in Germany the reporting (and politicians lamenting) on such has increased recently so there will probably be some rule changes, most probably regarding the 150 euro minimum for customs duties.
https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/temu-shein-spd...
https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/temu-shein-spd...
Here in New Zealand the government passed a law that sellers like AliExpress had to pay taxes on items they shipped here directly, based on the sale price. There was a lot of debate if they would, but they all did it.
They don't collect import duty though, because we've had a free trade agreement with China since 2008.
They don't collect import duty though, because we've had a free trade agreement with China since 2008.
Basically my understanding is that now the seller must do the tolls/taxes before sending the package. Really hits small time sellers in places like UK, but Ali and Temu and so on are so big they can just implement it, pay taxes and still be cheaper than adding local middlemen in the mix.
Temu dumps incredible amount of money on marketing here.
Because the great majority of stuff being put up for sale on Amazon comes from Shein and Temu, or some smaller Chinese lookalikes. In pure colonial style the Westerners just want a bigger cut without bringing anything new to the table.
I don’t know. I ordered some drill bits and a kitchen gadget from Temu and it was hot garbage. The metal used was so soft you could bend the drills. Threw an out after one single use, same with the grater
Reminds me of when it was cheaper to ship bolts from China than from across the street due to subsidies.
why is it that the Biden administration do these right things so freaking slowly? should have been done years ago. Just like allowing Ukraine to do certain things to defend itself.
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...
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...
With the federal government the options are do things slowly or not at all.
I just assume that any of this cheap unbranded garbage is filled with shit that's toxic. The Chinese companies making this stuff has no reason to care. They can't be held liable for anything.
Why would Amazon be any different in practice?
Being a US company doesn’t stop them from being filled with imitation/knock-off goods from fly by night companies.
Being a US company doesn’t stop them from being filled with imitation/knock-off goods from fly by night companies.
The same unbranded, zero QA, zero accountability products direct from China being sold on Amazon are also a problem. The only difference with Amazon that puts them like a single rung above Temu and Shien is that they also sell proper branded, non-counterfeit items (though my understanding for a while has been that counterfeits do end up getting mixed in with legit items).
us companies are subject to lawsuits from us citizens and government
In theory. On the ground - they just provide a market hall, with no liability and fitness of purpose implied.
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.