Pricepoint is gone :-(

On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 00:50:44 +0200, Emanuel Berg
wrote:

sms wrote:

China takes full advantage of the reciprocity
agreements for international mail. A package
mailed from China to the U.S. generates zero
revenue for the U.S.P.S. while a package
mailed from the U.S. to China generates zero
revenue for the China Post. When these
agreements were made, they were not thinking
about USB cables or bicycle parts being
shipped to individual consumers in the U.S.,
it was assumed that the mail volumes would
not be unequal enough for each country's
postal service to bother with with trying to
divide revenue.

Wow, interesting!

The Treaty of Bern, establishing the General Postal Union, was signed
in 1874. Membership in the Union grew so quickly during the following
three years that its name was changed to the Universal Postal Union in
1878.

The Treaty of Bern succeeded in unifying a confusing international
maze of postal services and regulations into a single postal territory
for the reciprocal exchange of letters.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 6:44:48 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-15 15:17, DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote:
CRUSHED BY UNIVERSAL CYCLES


Their web site is a mess. You can't even sort 700c tires by width and
have to click on just about every one of them to find out.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

devious plan forcing the consumer's acquisition of information

On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 7:26:48 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-15 15:48, sms wrote:
On 8/15/2016 3:36 PM, Joerg wrote:

snip

AFAIK shipping is a real killer for US businesses. Our oh-so-smart
decision makers have largely done away with surface mail. That means our
businesses will internationally barely stand a chance. China's decision
makers were not this stupid so people almost anywhere in the world can
order stuff from there at very low shipping costs. Same for other Asian
countries such as the Philippines.

China takes full advantage of the reciprocity agreements for
international mail. A package mailed from China to the U.S. generates
zero revenue for the U.S.P.S. while a package mailed from the U.S. to
China generates zero revenue for the China Post. When these agreements
were made, they were not thinking about USB cables or bicycle parts
being shipped to individual consumers in the U.S., it was assumed that
the mail volumes would not be unequal enough for each country's postal
service to bother with with trying to divide revenue.


Well, it's time for the decision makers to wake up. Why are we paying
their salaries, fat pensions and all that if they let us as a country down?

We have to make sure that our infrastructure costs are not penalizing
our own businesses and right now WRT shipping they sure are.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

the Gov allowed J citizenship ?

On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 16:26:46 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-08-15 15:48, sms wrote:
On 8/15/2016 3:36 PM, Joerg wrote:

snip

AFAIK shipping is a real killer for US businesses. Our oh-so-smart
decision makers have largely done away with surface mail. That means our
businesses will internationally barely stand a chance. China's decision
makers were not this stupid so people almost anywhere in the world can
order stuff from there at very low shipping costs. Same for other Asian
countries such as the Philippines.

China takes full advantage of the reciprocity agreements for
international mail. A package mailed from China to the U.S. generates
zero revenue for the U.S.P.S. while a package mailed from the U.S. to
China generates zero revenue for the China Post. When these agreements
were made, they were not thinking about USB cables or bicycle parts
being shipped to individual consumers in the U.S., it was assumed that
the mail volumes would not be unequal enough for each country's postal
service to bother with with trying to divide revenue.


Well, it's time for the decision makers to wake up. Why are we paying
their salaries, fat pensions and all that if they let us as a country down?

We have to make sure that our infrastructure costs are not penalizing
our own businesses and right now WRT shipping they sure are.

Unfortunately (or perhaps "as usual") you have it wrong. This
infrastructure cost you are talking about is the U.S. cost of mailing
a package and has nothing to do with China.

The great "loss" that you are ranting about doesn't exist per se. This
horrendous loss is the difference between the cost of mailing a letter
in China and the cost of mailing a letter in the U.S. and the U.,S.
cost is set by the U.S. Postal Department, I believe as allowed by
some sort of public law or policy.

This terribly unfair system you are talking about is actually an
international treaty that dates back to the mid 1800's and (Surprise)
one of the main instigators of the treaty was the U.S.
--
cheers,

John B.

On 8/15/2016 6:59 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 00:50:44 +0200, Emanuel Berg
wrote:

sms wrote:

China takes full advantage of the reciprocity
agreements for international mail. A package
mailed from China to the U.S. generates zero
revenue for the U.S.P.S. while a package
mailed from the U.S. to China generates zero
revenue for the China Post. When these
agreements were made, they were not thinking
about USB cables or bicycle parts being
shipped to individual consumers in the U.S.,
it was assumed that the mail volumes would
not be unequal enough for each country's
postal service to bother with with trying to
divide revenue.

Wow, interesting!

The Treaty of Bern, establishing the General Postal Union, was signed
in 1874. Membership in the Union grew so quickly during the following
three years that its name was changed to the Universal Postal Union in
1878.

The Treaty of Bern succeeded in unifying a confusing international
maze of postal services and regulations into a single postal territory
for the reciprocal exchange of letters.


And has always been full of oddities and loopholes. See also
Charles Ponzi:
http://postalmuseum.si.edu/inspectors/a3p2.html


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

On 8/16/2016 2:46 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 16:26:46 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-08-15 15:48, sms wrote:
On 8/15/2016 3:36 PM, Joerg wrote:

snip

AFAIK shipping is a real killer for US businesses. Our oh-so-smart
decision makers have largely done away with surface mail. That means our
businesses will internationally barely stand a chance. China's decision
makers were not this stupid so people almost anywhere in the world can
order stuff from there at very low shipping costs. Same for other Asian
countries such as the Philippines.

China takes full advantage of the reciprocity agreements for
international mail. A package mailed from China to the U.S. generates
zero revenue for the U.S.P.S. while a package mailed from the U.S. to
China generates zero revenue for the China Post. When these agreements
were made, they were not thinking about USB cables or bicycle parts
being shipped to individual consumers in the U.S., it was assumed that
the mail volumes would not be unequal enough for each country's postal
service to bother with with trying to divide revenue.


Well, it's time for the decision makers to wake up. Why are we paying
their salaries, fat pensions and all that if they let us as a country down?

We have to make sure that our infrastructure costs are not penalizing
our own businesses and right now WRT shipping they sure are.

Unfortunately (or perhaps "as usual") you have it wrong. This
infrastructure cost you are talking about is the U.S. cost of mailing
a package and has nothing to do with China.

The great "loss" that you are ranting about doesn't exist per se. This
horrendous loss is the difference between the cost of mailing a letter
in China and the cost of mailing a letter in the U.S. and the U.,S.
cost is set by the U.S. Postal Department, I believe as allowed by
some sort of public law or policy.

This terribly unfair system you are talking about is actually an
international treaty that dates back to the mid 1800's and (Surprise)
one of the main instigators of the treaty was the U.S.


Actually First Class rates are set by Congress. Imagine
changing anything by an Act of Congress and you see why that
rate is often unresponsive to markets.

The quasi-public USPS adjusts the other rates, specifically
here small packet International rates, to balance the
system's expenses . Those expenses include Congress'
mandated pension funding scheme with requirements far beyond
any other public or private entity in this country, You can
argue the wisdom of that if you like but here we are now-
with draconian increases for US mailers of overseas goods.
In the case of an international letter pack $15 a few years
ago and now $32.50 over a period in which most other freight
rates have dropped (as Mr Slocomb noted earlier)

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

On 2016-08-15 17:43, DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote:
On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 6:44:48 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-15 15:17, DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote:
CRUSHED BY UNIVERSAL CYCLES


Their web site is a mess. You can't even sort 700c tires by width and
have to click on just about every one of them to find out.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

devious plan forcing the consumer's acquisition of information


Which isn't going to work with most consumers, such as myself.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2016-08-16 00:46, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 16:26:46 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-08-15 15:48, sms wrote:
On 8/15/2016 3:36 PM, Joerg wrote:

snip

AFAIK shipping is a real killer for US businesses. Our oh-so-smart
decision makers have largely done away with surface mail. That means our
businesses will internationally barely stand a chance. China's decision
makers were not this stupid so people almost anywhere in the world can
order stuff from there at very low shipping costs. Same for other Asian
countries such as the Philippines.

China takes full advantage of the reciprocity agreements for
international mail. A package mailed from China to the U.S. generates
zero revenue for the U.S.P.S. while a package mailed from the U.S. to
China generates zero revenue for the China Post. When these agreements
were made, they were not thinking about USB cables or bicycle parts
being shipped to individual consumers in the U.S., it was assumed that
the mail volumes would not be unequal enough for each country's postal
service to bother with with trying to divide revenue.


Well, it's time for the decision makers to wake up. Why are we paying
their salaries, fat pensions and all that if they let us as a country down?

We have to make sure that our infrastructure costs are not penalizing
our own businesses and right now WRT shipping they sure are.

Unfortunately (or perhaps "as usual") you have it wrong. This
infrastructure cost you are talking about is the U.S. cost of mailing
a package and has nothing to do with China.

The great "loss" that you are ranting about doesn't exist per se. This
horrendous loss is the difference between the cost of mailing a letter
in China and the cost of mailing a letter in the U.S. and the U.,S.
cost is set by the U.S. Postal Department, I believe as allowed by
some sort of public law or policy.

This terribly unfair system you are talking about is actually an
international treaty that dates back to the mid 1800's and (Surprise)
one of the main instigators of the treaty was the U.S.


Unfortunately (or perhaps as usual) you have not read carefully. I wrote
that there was a decision by the movers and shakers in the US to no
longer allow international surface mail. _That_ is the key problem and
it's got nothing to do with old international treaties. If I send
something to Manila it costs over 10 bucks. If they send the same thing
back here it costs less than a buck. Do you now understand?

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2016-08-15 16:39, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 15:36:24 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-08-15 15:08, sms wrote:
On 8/15/2016 1:22 PM, Joerg wrote:
Folks,

Today I wanted to look for a wrench and I could not believe it, they are
closed for good:

http://www.pricepoint.com/we-are-closed/

Very sad. They always had good deals on Thai tires and such, but most of
all it is sad for the people who worked there which I always though were
great.

Too bad.

Fortunately my friend can now get me very name brand tubes and tires for
60% off the company's posted MSRP! I received an order which should last
me for many years. Tubes and tires have extremely high margins, and
Pricepoint's business model seemed to be based on that fact. I wonder
what went wrong.


No idea, there was nothing I could see on the web other than that their
inventory seemed to have started trickling down fast.

Competition online is very fierce. Example: I started brewing again so I
needed a hydrometer. $7-8 at the brew supply places online ... hmm ...
casually looked elsewhere, just for kicks. Lo and behold Newegg of all
places had one for $2.19 including shipping from China(!). They also
have mountain bike tires and all sorts of other stuff. This is mainly a
computer gear supplier yet they ferociously eat into other companies'
turf. I've bought cycling stuff there as well.

AFAIK shipping is a real killer for US businesses. Our oh-so-smart
decision makers have largely done away with surface mail. That means our
businesses will internationally barely stand a chance. China's decision
makers were not this stupid so people almost anywhere in the world can
order stuff from there at very low shipping costs. Same for other Asian
countries such as the Philippines.

Actually "shipping" from China can be cheap. Rates change on a daily,
maybe hourly, basis but a rough estimate is in the $4.00/cu ft range
at the moment.


Exactly. Because shipping over there actually means literally what the
word says if the sender wants it that way, send by _ship_ and not always
airmail. Now try mailing something to China from the US by ship.

The decision to abandon international surface mail has cost scores of
jobs in the US and hardly anyone seems to understand that (other than
maybe Donald Trump). Shipping costs are a major factor for a consumer to
decide to buy something not over here but rather over yonder. I've even
had cases where the shipping cost from inside the US to here was higher
than from China to here. That's sick.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 8/16/2016 8:18 AM, AMuzi wrote:


The quasi-public USPS...

Very much OT, but: I'm probably the only person here who's had the
experience of a USPS official standing near my property line and yelling
at me "WE CAN TAKE YOUR HOUSE!!!"

Why? Because I was one of the many in our neighborhood who didn't want
all the traffic for the new Post Office to be using our quiet
residential street.

OK, back to mailing rates.

--
- Frank Krygowski