How long does this agreement last? Or is it perpetual? Maybe Trump just needs to be made aware it exists and it will disappear.

Hungary?

This is the problem with too many US government agreements with other countries lately. Having an agreement seems to have become more important than what the agreement actually says. As a result, anything that speeds along the signing of the agreement is agreed to.

Without an actual fiduciary interest, the US negotiator too often elevates getting an agreement, any agreement, to primary importance and is unwilling to walk away. It is not the US government's job to promote the growth of another country's industry. Our trade representatives seem to have forgotten that of late.

Unfortunately, this also proves Trump's oft-argued point about the US being in too many one-sided trade deals.

However, it's not just trade deals that suffer from this "any deal is better than no deal" mentality. For example, the Iran nuclear deal contained no verification mechanism and contained few to no penalties for non-compliance, because the important thing for the US negotiators was not actually reducing the nuclear threat, but getting a deal in place. Not to mention that the deal did not address any of Iran's other global transgressions, like open support for terrorist organizations and fomenting unrest throughout the Middle East. So, we shipped them pallets of cash they could readily use to fund Hamas attacks on Israel.

The type designer who did a needlepoint font I liked was in Hungary.

And Conan, you make great points -- the desire to get an agreement taking priority over the big picture: screwing the American taxpayers.

Without an actual fiduciary interest, the US negotiator

S/he might have a fiduciary interest. It just may not align with the interests of the taxpayers in the USofA.

While one hopes that such lofty positions are well insulated against graft and corruption they are still human.

Well, if He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named-On-This-Forum truly wants fair trade deals with places like China and South Korea, he would be wise to eliminate the special postage rates.

The incompetence of US negotiators is even worse than we thought.

Matthew Continetti review chief Iran deal negotiator, Wendy Sherman's new book, Not for the Faint of Heart: Lessons in Courage, Power, and Persistence:

"After dinner on the 25th day, I met with Abbas Aragchi, Iran’s lead negotiator, with his partner, Majid Takht-Ravanchi to go over one final UN resolution." Aragchi agreed. Then he backtracked. He wanted to reopen a matter previously considered closed. What happened next is the most stunning thing I have ever heard a diplomat reveal.

"I lost it," Sherman continues. "I began to tell [sic], and to my frustration and fury, my eyes began to well up with tears. I told them their tactics jeopardized the entire deal."

The Iranians sat there, "stunned" and "silent," as the representative of the United States of America, the global economic and military superpower, broke down in the middle of a conference room inside a posh hotel in the Austrian capital. "Women are told early in life that it’s not socially acceptable to get angry," Sherman laments. "And it’s a sign of weakness to let people see you cry." Men are told that too, by the way.

So, our go-to negotiating tactic with Iran was to weep? That's courage, power, and persistence?

And notice that her openly expressed lament was that the Iranians tactics were "jeopardizing the entire deal." With that emotional outburst, she revealed to the Iranians that getting a deal, any deal, was the important thing to her.

She goes on, justifying her histrionics.

“Something in the sincerity of my frustration broke through,” Sherman says. “After a long silent moment, Aragchi dismissed his objection.” What do you imagine Aragchi and Takht-Ravanchi were thinking? Did these Islamic revolutionaries stroke their chins, lower their eyes, and say to themselves, "When you bring values like authenticity, persistence, and commitment to the negotiating table, both in work and personal life, you are enormously powerful?" That was Wendy’s takeaway.

Of course he dismissed his objection. He'd found your weak spot. You needed a deal, any deal. It was just paper to you. He knew then that he could violate at will any deal you reached, as long as you could say you got a deal.

Out of that, she got that the lesson was showing your opponent that you're "authentic, persistent, and committed" with sobbing hysterics is how to negotiate?

That means I got negotiating all wrong when I bought my first car out of college. I simply sat there and told the guy calmly that I would not pay the interest rate that he kept pointing out in a loose leaf binder was the "going rate." Funny thing, the interest rate the dealer finally agreed to was less than half the one originally proposed.

Many of us were aware of this issue Conan. I remember listening to her on NPR. She was complaining about her critics and how what they wanted wasn't reasonable. In her words you were negotiation against yourself if you wanted to get anything more out of the Iranians. She clearly didn't have the concept that not reaching a deal was an option.

And she isn't alone. Getting a deal (any deal) is something you can put on your resume as an accomplishment. And most likely no one will ever check if the deal was actually a good one or not. Failing to get a deal doesn't get you anything. So the incentives are obvious.

As for this USPS deal, I expect it is just a standard contract. Not a treaty or anything more complicated that would require congressional approval. And given standard boilerplate there should be an exit clause in there. Which is why I suggested pestering Trump about it. He probably has the authority to end this all on his own. And these are the kinds of things he likes ending.

As for fixing government negotiators, good luck. You can clean things up for a while. But one people stop looking over their shoulders and complaining they will fall back into the same old pattern.

Failing to get a deal doesn't get you anything. So the incentives are obvious.

There’s the same issue with special prosecutors. They have no incentive to admit they couldn’t find any evidence of wrongdoing. So they just keep digging.

Yep. And then they end up with some pointless unrelated thing.

Do you wonder how shipping to China is significant, when the subsidy of advertising isn't?

That fat package from Capital One isn't magically less trouble to carry than a first-class letter, yet here one is, every week, for less-than 1st class rates!