<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>BearGoesChirp</author><text>As to your second argument, I&amp;#x27;m still not sure why it is legal to buy or own materials in the US created by human rights abuse.  Let&amp;#x27;s take a case of a Chinese good produced by political slaves in prison.  By buying or owning that good, a person is financially supporting the abuse that went into creating that good.  Same applies for something that is produced for cheaper due to an ability to pollute in ways that aren&amp;#x27;t legal in the US (or other countries, this argument need not be just for the US).&lt;p&gt;But there are some digital goods where we do not give this same treatment (namely digital material involving really bad child maltreatment).  Regardless of the legality of where the material is produced, owning it in the US is illegal because it couldn&amp;#x27;t legally be produced in the US and funding such illegal action elsewhere is considered morally wrong enough to ban.&lt;p&gt;Simply put, I think the core idea should be applied to all financial transactions.  If one is buying a good or service that would be illegal in the US due to harm to another human, it should be illegal to buy or own in the US, even if where it is produced is legal.  The law should prevent a person from harming another human by shopping around and finding wherever has the least legal protections.</text><parent_chain><item><author>013a</author><text>But the core of the argument is that this isn&amp;#x27;t pure capitalist economics; the government is essentially subsidizing China&amp;#x27;s ability to compete in America. It&amp;#x27;d be one thing if China could make it and ship it for legitimately cheaper, but abusing a treaty loophole in USPS regulations isn&amp;#x27;t the same. That&amp;#x27;s an unfair advantage.&lt;p&gt;There&amp;#x27;s also a second argument at play: If China can make a product for $10 cheaper, legitimate shipping included, because they&amp;#x27;re allowed to abuse their workers and pay them much less, do we trust pure capitalism to properly prioritize the values of the American people? This really is the case of, say, Apple&amp;#x27;s electronics plants in China.</text></item><item><author>csydas</author><text>&amp;gt; All of this is little comfort to McGrath, who chafes at the thought of the Postal Service helping Chinese merchants poach his customers. “All of us sellers are selling a lot of Chinese goods in America but at least we’re creating jobs, making money, and adding to the economy,” he said. “But when people buy direct from China that’s adding nothing to the American economy.”&lt;p&gt;I understand the seller&amp;#x27;s frustration - their means of supporting themselves has been taken away, but I&amp;#x27;m not sure I buy the argument that we need the intermediary just to &amp;quot;add to the economy&amp;quot;. To me it just seems like an unsustainable business model that was destined to die once global communication became much easier, not just because of the various treaties and agreements of postal services.&lt;p&gt;The moment that chinese sellers could get a site available to a global audience, the need for an intermediary vanished; before you essentially paid for the connection; an extra $18 on a remote controlled toy boat was paying for access to the seller&amp;#x27;s inventory, supplied by his Chinese connections.&lt;p&gt;Now, there&amp;#x27;s no need for that connection or that warehouse - the visibility for any foreign seller is much greater, even to the point that it probably would still be valuable even without the USPS trade deal.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s unfortunate, but this just seems like a model that was destined to die.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>USPS loses millions each year on local delivery of mail from abroad (2014)</title><url>https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/09/12/the-postal-service-is-losing-millions-a-year-to-help-you-buy-cheap-stuff-from-china/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>GavinMcG</author><text>I think that second argument is a different case than the one this thread concerns. This isn&amp;#x27;t about different manufacturing environments - it&amp;#x27;s about literally the same product being distributed via a middleman or not.&lt;p&gt;We&amp;#x27;ve always benefited from Chinese labor abuses, and whether an American intermediary is involved doesn&amp;#x27;t change that.</text><parent_chain><item><author>013a</author><text>But the core of the argument is that this isn&amp;#x27;t pure capitalist economics; the government is essentially subsidizing China&amp;#x27;s ability to compete in America. It&amp;#x27;d be one thing if China could make it and ship it for legitimately cheaper, but abusing a treaty loophole in USPS regulations isn&amp;#x27;t the same. That&amp;#x27;s an unfair advantage.&lt;p&gt;There&amp;#x27;s also a second argument at play: If China can make a product for $10 cheaper, legitimate shipping included, because they&amp;#x27;re allowed to abuse their workers and pay them much less, do we trust pure capitalism to properly prioritize the values of the American people? This really is the case of, say, Apple&amp;#x27;s electronics plants in China.</text></item><item><author>csydas</author><text>&amp;gt; All of this is little comfort to McGrath, who chafes at the thought of the Postal Service helping Chinese merchants poach his customers. “All of us sellers are selling a lot of Chinese goods in America but at least we’re creating jobs, making money, and adding to the economy,” he said. “But when people buy direct from China that’s adding nothing to the American economy.”&lt;p&gt;I understand the seller&amp;#x27;s frustration - their means of supporting themselves has been taken away, but I&amp;#x27;m not sure I buy the argument that we need the intermediary just to &amp;quot;add to the economy&amp;quot;. To me it just seems like an unsustainable business model that was destined to die once global communication became much easier, not just because of the various treaties and agreements of postal services.&lt;p&gt;The moment that chinese sellers could get a site available to a global audience, the need for an intermediary vanished; before you essentially paid for the connection; an extra $18 on a remote controlled toy boat was paying for access to the seller&amp;#x27;s inventory, supplied by his Chinese connections.&lt;p&gt;Now, there&amp;#x27;s no need for that connection or that warehouse - the visibility for any foreign seller is much greater, even to the point that it probably would still be valuable even without the USPS trade deal.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s unfortunate, but this just seems like a model that was destined to die.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>USPS loses millions each year on local delivery of mail from abroad (2014)</title><url>https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/09/12/the-postal-service-is-losing-millions-a-year-to-help-you-buy-cheap-stuff-from-china/</url></story>