I've seen this line about postal subsidies mentioned several times, but no one I've asked has pointed to any credible original source for these subsidies.

Are you really talking about some specific set of subsidies paid by the Chinese government? Or just the fact that China Post pays a pretty low rate per kg for USPS for delivery to US addresses?

The Universal Postal Union is part of the UN. Certain countries get favorable treatment, based on being designated "transitional" under the current agreements. China is currently "transitional".

I suppose, technically, it's not a subsidy, but it works like one by setting a fixed, unrealistic cap on rates from the receiving country.

Does the Washington Post count as credible?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/09/12/...

Edit: I have only anecdotal evidence of the other subsidies I mentioned...the Chinese side ones. We buy a lot from China.

Edit 2: You may also hear people complaining about the special ePacket program that the USPS negotiated. This is an interesting Inspector General document on whether it was a good idea; https://www.uspsoig.gov/sites/default/files/document-library...

>> Does the Washington Post count as credible?

It does count as credible, but neither that WaPo article nor the link in your 2nd edit even mention the word 'subsidy'.

(My earlier comment already acknowledged the impact of postal charges. I was asking specifically about the 'subsidies' which I've seen mentioned repeatedly, but without any specifics to lend credence to the claim.)

>>It does count as credible, but neither that WaPo article nor the link in your 2nd edit even mention the word 'subsidy'.

I don't see a remarkable difference between charging someone "less than actual cost" and the word "subsidy".

But, it sounds like you're looking for a credible source specifically on Chinese government subsidies made to Chinese exporters. That would be difficult to find, as it would likely violate treaties...the Chinese government wouldn't talk openly about it.

Not specifically about postal subsidies, but indicative of the controversy "proof" would stir up: https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-...

>> I don't see a remarkable difference between charging someone "less than actual cost" and the word "subsidy".

OK:

- I think we're in agreement that neither of us is aware of a credible source for the 'Direct help from China' you mentioned in your earlier post.

- Although transitional countries pay less in terminal dues than do other countries, I've not seen data to suggest that the amount paid by China Post to USPS is 'less than actual cost' for USPS to deliver said packages. (I'm presuming by 'cost' here you mean 'marginal cost'.)