re: It is rarely mentioned that the 400billion in IP theft is paid for by consumers

feel like the OP used a sawed off shotgun to attempt to make a point that required a sniper rifle.

The target still gets hit.

quote:

---

Some fools would much rather brag about the high price they paid, rather than how much they saved.

---

And they aren’t fools because they’re absorbing the costs of IP theft. They’re fools because they’re absorbing the costs of their foolishness.

quote:

---

It would be a horrible argument if China were a free market economy. Climb down off of your high horse and let it sink in that the factories making knock offs are government owned. You think that the people can buy real Nikes? Maybe the ruling elite, but not your everyday worker

---

What does ANY of this have to do with your absurd post I responded to?

quote:

---

400billion in IP theft is paid for by consumers

---

i've been making this point for weeks, if not months. ib and npc90 keep going on and on about how select segments of the economy are experiencing pain due to the tariffs. well, there was ALREADY pain due to ip theft, not to mention the national security risk.

90's only response is that the security threat is "imagined and vague" and that the tpp is better because it was touchy feely, politically correct, un approved multilateral instead of that nasty mean spirited capitalist unilateral bullying we have going on now.

quote:

---

They’re fools because they’re absorbing

---

Absorbing = Paid for by consumers, which denotes your agreement with the OP premise.

OTOH, for businesses with tighter margins, if there is no "absorbing", the business dies. The fact Nike or Apple happen to have better margins is wholly irrelevant.

quote:

---

that nasty mean spirited capitalist unilateral bullying we have going on now.

---

Hear hear bfniii.

Simple question for the board regarding bilateral vs unilateral agreements....do you think Wal Mart pays the same price for goods as your local hardware store? If not, why not? Because he is the biggest swinging nads in the room.

Why on earth would we make a deal sweet enough for Japan to sign...and give it to Brunei as well? Brunei who has a GDP less than the fricking city of Baton Rouge.

Oh but TPP is a countermeasure to china, NO ITS NOT, it was whoring ourselves out. Why didnt we say we will give you the same deal as China, you bend over let us take all your IP, put up local barriers, and dump in your markets, now that would be a TPP deal I could live with.

This benevolent bs has to end. If we had the same market share we had walking out of WW2 our GDP per capita would be 100K per person, let that sink in. Instead we are half that, mired in debt, hooked on chini drugs, and little manufacturing base left, while our IP is being thiefed left and right....and we are welcoming millions more to just suck off our social programs with little to no benefit to our economy.

Now get on the porch, hold Trumps diet coke, and let him get busy with it.

I’m more concerned with those that are ok with IP theft for the sake of lower prices but are appalled by tariffs (not wholly) to stop IP theft. How you can be ok with theft in one instance and not the other is puzzling.

quote:

---

I’m more concerned with those that are ok with IP theft for the sake of lower prices but are appalled by tariffs (not wholly) to stop IP theft

---

you are describing npc90.

90, jump in on trinidad's post when you get a chance.

quote:

---

wouldn’t that theoretically decrease the demand for the Nike’s, since people are buying the knock-offs, and with a lower demand, put downward on the price

---

my man

another thing to remember: IP is explicitly designed to give and preserve monopoly power on pricing, which is why the theft of IP would fall heaviest on monopoly rents/profits in nearly all cases

yet another: gaining the sweet IP protection in China that our big firms operating internationally want so bad will just make it cheaper and less risky for them to outsource more production

quote:

---

I see you skipped mkting and economics, you miss finance as well? The point is they dont buy any Nikes they buy chini knockoffs.

---

Well I interpreted this literally:

quote:

---

Of course not, why do you think US consumers pay 100 bucks more for Nikes and Frozen school book bags than other countries do.

---

That’s my mistake. But I’m still not following the economics in your scenario either way. If the anticipated demand is stolen by knockoffs, wouldn’t that be more likely to leave excess supply? And wouldn’t that mean a decrease in price is more likely? And then wouldn’t Nike eventually cut down their supply to meet the demand?

So why would the cost necessarily increase for us as a result of knockoffs undercutting the Nike’s, unless consumer’s are willing to absorb price increases that Nike tries pass along? But then why wouldn’t they just set the price point there anyways even if there weren’t knockoffs undercutting their sales?