- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Tariffs on importers from China going to 25% Friday, apparently
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:30 am to buckeye_vol
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:30 am to buckeye_vol
In 2011.... we, the USA, had lost 2 million jobs due to IP theft alone by China
1
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:38 am to Jjdoc
quote:I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm merely stating that IP protection can often minimize the benefits of a market -system, and when taking to the extreme, can be detrimental.
You are arguing "see.... it all worked out right?!"
All to justify IP theft by china.
It's probably a necessary evil, but we should always carefully consider where that line is and not push it too far either way. It's one thing to steal someone's code like in the American Semiconductor example, and Apple obtaining a patent for the shape of their phones (a rectangle with round corners).
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:41 am to buckeye_vol
quote:Right. That is the point though. A retail enterprise may be profitable despite 15% revenue loss d/t shoplifting. The fact of its profitability does not make the 15% loss any less limiting. The 15%, if eliminated, might mean the difference in the company launching a new line, franchising, employing more workers, paying better, better consumer product and/or pricing, etc.
and despite IP theft,
To intimate revenue loss due to theft is inconsequential (as 90pp does repeatedly here) is silly.
quote:Microsoft market cap recently surpassed both AAPL and AMZ. It might not hold the position long, but you're right about the beneficial management change.
Microsoft went from a company that looked like it's best days were well behind it
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:47 am to Jjdoc
quote:I'm having a hard time believing this number. Do you have a source for it? I mean we added over 2 million non-farm jobs in 2011. Are you telling me that, even considering I'm sure US companies steal some IP from China as well, that we had a net loss $2 million jobs but still created over 2 million more?
In 2011.... we, the USA, had lost 2 million jobs due to IP theft alone by China
So we would have added almost 340,000 jobs per month, in the Obama economy, for an entire year, despite only adding more than that once in the last 10 years?
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:47 am to 90proofprofessional
Here's what I don't get. There are a lot of problems associated with trading with China. IP, environment, dumping, etc.
So why the frick am I supposed to care about the trade deficit that the president keeps whining about? It's actually increasing right now anyway
So why the frick am I supposed to care about the trade deficit that the president keeps whining about? It's actually increasing right now anyway
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:50 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
walk me through that. who lost actual jobs to china because of IP?
Wow. Lots of people.
Everyone at Omniglow Corporation, for example. The Chinese ignored their patents and sent product to a wide array of "distributors" in the US. Whenever Omniglow would go after someone for infringement, they would simply close shop, disappear into the woodwork, and reappear as another company in a different location. Hundreds of people were laid off from Omniglow's West Springfield, MA offices when they finally closed shop.
Because of the distributed nature of sales these days, patents are almost worthless. You can keep honest companies honest with them, but the number of hacks out there that are willing to turn a blind eye to IP to make a few sales is staggering. China won't stop it at the manufacturing end, and it is impossible to round up all of the small fry that are actually making the sales.
You seem like an intelligent person. You should do a bit of research to familiarize yourself with the pain and hardship that goes on when a company goes out of business because it can no longer protect its IP.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:50 am to cahoots
We shouldn't be trading with them.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:57 am to Jjdoc
quote:
We shouldn't be trading with them.
Well that's not on the table bro. Trump wants to shrink the deficit. Why is that priority #1? It's nonsense
This post was edited on 5/7/19 at 9:58 am
Posted on 5/7/19 at 9:59 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
as a wind turbine software company, the Chinese market has a uniquely disproportionate share. So losing that after the company they partnered with bribed a guy with $2 million and more (women) for their source code, I think they have one of the best (maybe the best) complaints out there
agreed it's a legit complaint, although probably not representative of much that'd support that claim of 2 million. i was wondering where the laid off workers were
Posted on 5/7/19 at 10:01 am to Jjdoc
quote:
I just told you.
who did they lay off and where were they working
Posted on 5/7/19 at 10:03 am to cahoots
quote:
There are a lot of problems associated with trading with China. IP, environment, dumping, etc.
So why the frick am I supposed to care about the trade deficit that the president keeps whining about
IP's the new fig leaf, like i've said
promises of a return to our old manufacturing greatness by tariffs and threats of tariffs was always a cruel lie they don't even seem to be trying to defend anymore
Posted on 5/7/19 at 10:04 am to NC_Tigah
quote:But my issue with this argument is this:
Right. That is the point though. A retail enterprise may be profitable despite 15% revenue loss d/t shoplifting. The fact of its profitability does not make the 15% loss any less limiting. The 15%, if eliminated, might mean the difference in the company launching a new line, franchising, employing more workers, paying better, better consumer product and/or pricing, etc.
I'm sure we both agree walking into a store, stuffing some clothes in a bag, and walking out without paying for them is a clear example of theft.
However, what if someone walked into a store, bought the clothes, then lent them out to friends when he/she wasn't wearing them? I doubt you would call that theft.
Yet, if someone buys some software, then lends it to a friend to use on his/her computing, then it's suddenly theft? Why? Where does a person's right to give away a product that he bought and owns, become an example of theft?
I mean companies can and do out restrictions on things so it can't be recreated, but if one can either bypass those restrictions, and/or they didn't even put them in place, how is that theft?
quote:And I think Microsoft and other companies are now seeing that instead of nickle and diming everyone for a piece of software or product, and losing consumers to free or cheaper alternatives, they can build a more successful model by luring people into using their products for free/cheaper, then capturing them into their ecosystem and improving their experience instead of making them frustratingly dependent on it.
Microsoft market cap recently surpassed both AAPL and AMZ. It might not hold the position long, but you're right about the beneficial management change.
Netflix is a prime example. Sure they could put restrictions on their applications and limit the users. But instead they are completely fine with people sharing accounts. And now that they have people hooked on their offerings, they can raise prices without mass cancellations. Or if the person who paid for the account cancels, then the others who shared it may decide to buy it instead.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 10:05 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
who did they lay off and where were they working
You and I are done here. IBChinaman and his sidekick.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 10:07 am to Jjdoc
quote:Who is we, and who are you to tell anyone else what they should or shouldn't do? You're free to "not trade," and buy/sell products and services from elsewhere.
We shouldn't be trading with them.
But if I want to buy something that is cheaper and/or that I prefer for whatever reason, then I should be able to make my own decision in a free society.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 10:08 am to Allyn McKeen
thanks for a not-ghoulish answer, although i can't really look up any detailed accounts i'll assume that's another example
do you contend that the magnitude of the problem is to the tune of 2 million jobs per year? asking because you seem likely to be able to back it up with more than an anecdote if you say yes
do you contend that the magnitude of the problem is to the tune of 2 million jobs per year? asking because you seem likely to be able to back it up with more than an anecdote if you say yes
Posted on 5/7/19 at 10:08 am to Jjdoc
quote:
You and I are done here
wow, not even willing to get into the details of his single anecdote
suit yourself
Posted on 5/7/19 at 10:14 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:I just don't see how those numbers are even possible. If we had lost 2 millions jobs every year since 2011 to China alone, we would have lost over 16 million jobs, that's about 11% of the total non-farm jobs in the US.
do you contend that the magnitude of the problem is to the tune of 2 million jobs per year?
And there are a ton of jobs that can't be just stolen away because of IP theft. China isn't going to steal IP that causes physicians, teachers, police officers, strippers, plumbers, fast food workers, etc. to lose their jobs.
So if we're losing 2 million per year, and we only consider the jobs that could be displaced by IP theft, then we would be quickly heading towards losing all of those jobs, yet that doesn't seem to be the case.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 10:18 am to buckeye_vol
i saw one estimate from the noted soros-funded, union-shilling, protectionist thinktank Economic Policy Institute that post-WTO trade with China cost 3.4 million jobs total between 2001 and 2017
Posted on 5/7/19 at 10:19 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
wow, not even willing to get into the details of his single anecdote
No. I did. Others have. You are not interested in actual conversation.
You are simply an anti trumper who refuses to acknowledge the issue because it forces you to agree with him.
I'm done with this conversation because you are a troll.
Please continue on IB's sidekick!
Posted on 5/7/19 at 10:25 am to Jjdoc
quote:
You are not interested in actual conversation.
i am interested in the details of the example you bring up
quote:
refuses to acknowledge the issue
you're the one refusing to talk about your own example of the issue?
Page 13 of 19
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News