- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Official tariff challenge to ibchini and npc90
Posted on 5/24/19 at 7:20 pm to 90proofprofessional
Posted on 5/24/19 at 7:20 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:Well let's see . . . "If imbalance results from one country's workers building better products for less money, I'd not see that as an inherent problem."
Was a substantive argument about the degree to which the imbalances are a problem supposed to be in there somewhere?
Most readers would be fairly clear that the answer to your question is "no".
That was not clear to you?
As was pointed out in my post, the mere fact of imbalance is NOT THE PROBLEM. Depending on what it is though, the cause of imbalance may be a problem.
Where China is concerned, it is a major problem.
It sounds as if you want to act silly stupid about the CPC approach to trade, and instead are wanting to get in the weeds discussing isolated effects on individual companies.
So as you want to go there, let's talk Google and Huawei.
Google's expansion in China lasted until Baidu was developed as a Google-clone. At that point, the Chinese government began demands of Google to increasingly turnover user information to the CPC. It concomitantly began restricting Google search functions, and heavily subsidizing Baidu. The result? Baidu controls most of China's market with an inferior and censoring, CPC-spy product.
Meanwhile, Huawei has continuously swiped technology, and in concert with the CPC, has developed a massive 5G rollout plan. That has been done c/o a $30Bn CPC backing and intricate informational interrelationships. Anywhere Huawei's systems are employed, information can be gathered and referred back to the CPC.
Now folks who have no problem with Hillary storing SAP materials on her kitchen home internet server might see no problem with US networks being infested with Huawei equipment. Folks who would love to have a Sec of State so stupid that he'd give his passwords away to a stranger on the internet, probably see no particular threat imposed by a would-be Huawei-infested national wireless system. Apparently you are one of those folks.
The Chinese steal IP anyway they can. They are not shy about flaunting the results, e.g., those pesky pics. Your denial of that fact is noted.
0
Posted on 5/24/19 at 8:27 pm to bfniii
quote:
bfniii
I don’t know any of the posters here but you are getting sliced and diced.
I agree with assessments on how IP theft and other Chinese actions harm the USA but your arguments are incredibly naive and shallow.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 8:55 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:i QUOTED you where you did and also advocated it in another quote. my gosh you are crazy
you say i assessed a trade balance with an anecdote. i say i didn't
quote:where did this come from? the discussion is about how ip theft is a national security issue and is a main contributor to the trade imbalance
i thought we were talking about trade policy, not cyberattacks by hackers?
quote:tbd. but AT LEAST trump is trying and is applying pressure that is working. what the chini do with it remains to be seen. otoh, your tpp scenario is just wishful thinking and was a bad deal.
you think our tariffs are stopping this "policy"
quote:so you didn't and you can't offer a substantive, informed response on the matter. that's all you had to say. the president was merely echoing sentiments from others who also agree. HE ACTUALLY CITED SOMEONE WHO HAD QUANTIFIED THE PROBLEM. but you knew that already right? please tell me you have asperger's. i would buy that.
can't make an actual coherent argument for yourself
quote:link?
our current approach is stupid and unnecessary
quote:factually wrong. this has been debunked about a dozen times. you would know this if you were paying attention
hurting us while getting us nowhere
quote:you have said this itt.
that's not what i said there
quote:has ip theft been curbed?
so the pain has stopped?
quote:it is the threshold for something that is in the process of being addressed. you know this. you're just being an arse
this is your threshold for something has been addressed?
Posted on 5/28/19 at 9:02 pm to Jorts R Us
quote:you are wrong. all he has done is to deny that i have quoted him as doing what the op says.
I don't have to agree with his position to see he doesn't duck you
quote:name one.
If anything, you've left his points unaddressed
tpp - check.
trade is hurting the us - check.
ip theft is not a problem - check.
what else?
quote:hilariously wrong. if it is at a standstill, it is because of his "nuh unh" responses
Your cat fight is at a standstill because you are asking him to explain a position he's not really taking
Posted on 5/28/19 at 9:03 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:says the person who denies that ip theft is more of a problem than the temporary price of washing machines
you wouldn't know substance if you were choking on it
Posted on 5/28/19 at 9:04 pm to bfniii
quote:
npc90
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted on 5/28/19 at 9:09 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:um, yes. directly
Is your set of pictures intended to be responsive to the question of the nature of the threat?
quote:
What aspect of the threat precisely are you trying to claim with your pictures exists due to trade policies or IP policies that we don't like?
this is just bizarre. they aren't DUE TO trade policies. the ip theft is AFFECTING trade between the 2 countries because they are stealing ip and making it for cheaper. they did not put in the countless millions for r&d. and oh btw, the products in the pics were MILITARY products. guess what they are used for? i swear you have gone plum infantile quote:you're conflating 2 different issues here. the concessions will be when we feel confident that our ip is not getting stolen from trade deals. how will we know? when we don't see copycat products being developed by them for specific trade contracts. hacking is a totally different animal. sometimes i wonder if this is the most elaborate troll ever because you cannot possibly be this dumb
What specific kind of concessions are we going to get that will satisfy you that they don't try to hack our defense/contractor networks or copy our advancements?
Posted on 5/28/19 at 9:13 pm to CDawson
quote:
you are getting sliced and diced
dang. so when he says that he didn't say something and i twice QUOTE him as saying it, that's me getting sliced.
when he denies that ip theft is a national security threat, that's me getting sliced. THERE WERE PICTURES and he's STILL obfuscating.
when he thinks that temporary prices are more important than the china issue, that's me getting sliced.
when he thinks that he KNOWS the tpp would be better, that's me getting sliced.
your perspective on this matter is confusing
quote:link?
your arguments are incredibly naive and shallow
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News