- 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 10:27 am to buckeye_vol
Posted on 5/7/19 at 10:27 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
No. It's a de facto tax on their own citizens.
No. Taxes impact producer surplus and consumer surplus. You’re an idiot.
1
Posted on 5/7/19 at 10:48 am to buckeye_vol
Because it is in the contract that you can't give it away. It really is that simple. software is intellectual property. T-shirts are not.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 11:38 am to TeLeFaWx
quote:And how does that make Chinese tariffs a tax on US citizens but not a tax on Chinese citizens?
No. Taxes impact producer surplus and consumer surplus
I'll grant you that it does decrease the producer surplus for the companies who are impacted by the tax, including the US companies, but it's still directly impacting the Chinese consumers and any decrease in demand would likely impact their own producers downstream.
So the tax burden is far greater on the country that has instituted the tariffs than the countries exporting to that country.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 11:39 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
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
I cannot put any accurate numbers on what theft does to US business, but the impacts are larger than most people think. I know a lot of Silicon Valley companies that went belly-up because they couldn't protect their IP, but the bigger issue for me is the lack of growth that is caused by IP theft.
US companies are really, really good at R&D. We have the best minds from all over the globe working for us. We are way better at creating new stuff than the Japanese or Germans or Chinese, but you have to be able to monetize new things for it to make a difference for the creator. No one wants to go to all of the bother of creating a new line if Chinese companies are going to undercut you with the same product in 6 to 12 months.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 11:52 am to yatesdog38
quote:I'm not arguing that they aren't protected "legally," I'm must trying to determine why one is not considered theft while the other is when the "sharing" is nearly identical.
Because it is in the contract that you can't give it away. It really is that simple. software is intellectual property. T-shirts are not
And I'm not even talking about copying the software and distributing. I'll grant that this is an added step of creation that is not analogous to borrowing an outfit. HOWEVER, if I just give my single original copy of the software to someone else, then why is that different then giving the original copy of an outfit to someone else?
OR is sharing the original copy permissible (like borrowing a movie from a friend)?
Regardless, maybe my issue is that it just doesn't seem like theft is the best way to describe it.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 12:10 pm to Allyn McKeen
quote:But does this actually stunt growth? I mean the product still exists, and the creators will probably still be in demand to work on something else. I'm not saying it's right, but I just wonder if it actually impacts growth overall.
I know a lot of Silicon Valley companies that went belly-up because they couldn't protect their IP, but the bigger issue for me is the lack of growth that is caused by IP theft.
quote:In addition, it seems to me that maybe companies should start adapting their business model to this environment, such as:
but you have to be able to monetize new things for it to make a difference for the creator. No one wants to go to all of the bother of creating a new line if Chinese companies are going to undercut you with the same product in 6 to 12 months.
1. Focusing some of that ingenuity on making the theft. more difficult (instead of hoping the law will do it).
2. Finding ways to add value to the product that can't be as easily replicated by copying it (like Apple does).
3. Don't introduce it to a market that will likely copy it without legal recourse.
4. Get ahead of the theft, and make a deal with a company and give them the right to the intellectual property at a cost to them, but with the benefits of avoiding the time, costs, and potential loss to a competitor.
I know that this reality is not ideal, but at the same time, it's still reality. So instead of risking the consequences of it, by just hope alone, maybe just adapt to realities and find a way to limit the risk and/or benefit from it.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 12:12 pm to buckeye_vol
there is something called open source software that allows for sharing. Fruit of the loom could make a shirt with a tag on it that says not for sharing require you to sign a disclosure and it would be against the law for you to share the t-shirt. it is in the fine print. read the fine print and that will tell you whether or not you can share it.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 12:58 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
Regardless, maybe my issue is that it just doesn't seem like theft is the best way to describe it.
it is a somewhat different concept than the traditional "theft", which necessarily implied depriving the victim of the ability to use what is stolen
this kind of theft deprives the owner of the right to control the use of what is stolen
i see a skepticism similar to what you seem to display, toward IP's legitimacy, with some libertarians and ancaps. our own joshnorris14 & wikitiger used to argue that IP isn't a valid concept at all. i get it, and i do think that we go too far with IP in some cases, like maybe pharmaceuticals, but i do think it's a valid if slightly-altered concept.
This post was edited on 5/7/19 at 12:59 pm
Posted on 5/7/19 at 1:13 pm to yatesdog38
quote:I know. That's why I use R instead of SAS or SPSS.
there is something called open source software that allows for sharing
quote:Again. This is not my point. I acknowledge that the companies have legal rights over the distribution of some product even after ownership has been transferred.
Fruit of the loom could make a shirt with a tag on it that says not for sharing require you to sign a disclosure and it would be against the law for you to share the t-shirt. it is in the fine print. read the fine print and that will tell you whether or not you can share it.
But while I acknowledge that there are very valid reasons for such protections, I think there are some issues that just don't mesh with reality.
1. Just calling it theft. If the producer sells something to the buyer who is not authorized to give it to the borrower, but does anyways without any informed consent of the IP protections, who is the thief and who was it stolen from? The borrower was given something and could not have known that it was not legally permissible; however, the buyer despite not being authorized to give it way, no longer has the item, the opposite to stealing it.
Or what if the borrower ended up being Goodwill and it was given by the buyer's wife when she was cleaning the out junk from the house and had no idea of the contractual obligations. So now neither party in the transaction had any knowledge of the contract, and it was a charitable donation on top of that. Yet, given that it was illegal to transfer the property, and that's considered IP theft, clearly someone is a thief.
Was it the wife who was cleaning up after her husband and thought she was doing some good donating it to charity? Or was it Goodwill who accepted the item for their charity?
2. If these rights are so important than why are they primarily only covered when one seeks their protections? Shouldn't everything become protected intellectual property, like copyrights are?
I don't have to apply for some government protection for every single item I buy at the store. Yet, if someone takes something without my permission, they will be charged with theft.
Yet, if intellectual property theft is a thing, then why does that suddenly require say a patent to protect it. My guess it's because it's far more difficult to establish the origination of the idea without that legal protection, but that added complexity then makes that idea that it's theft just like anything else to be a bit flawed.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 1:30 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:And I see enough legitimacy as a necessary evil that I don't feel comfortable taking it to the extreme.
i see a skepticism similar to what you seem to display, toward IP's legitimacy, with some libertarians and ancaps. our own joshnorris14 & wikitiger used to argue that IP isn't a valid concept at all. i get it, and i do think that we go too far with IP in some cases, like maybe pharmaceuticals, but i do think it's a valid if slightly-altered concept.
So I feel comfortable with the idea that if an inventor patents an invention, then that person has a right to its production and the monetary gain from its initial distribution, either as the primary producer or some sort of royalties. So if I start producing your patented invention, then I should owe you for that.
That being said, I take issue with the idea that even after its been produced and sold, the creator still has ownership rights over the product (I would consider copying and selling the same as initial production though).
In my opinion, if you don't want it to be used for something else, then don't sell it, or make it so it can't be used that way.
In addition, and this is getting back to the libertarian argument, in order to enforce this, then the contractual obligation of the product not only extends to the buyer but everyone else as well, even though it becomes increasingly likely that the other parties will have know knowledge of this contractual obligations. So if the 1st owner does not inform the 2nd owner, then how can the 2nd owner be expected to adhere to the contract if he/she has no ability to provide informed consent?
Posted on 5/7/19 at 1:39 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:The difference in your example is you are not cloning the outfit. Either you wear it or your friend does. Software, you are copying and giving away . . . or in China's case, copying and then actually charging for it.
I'm must trying to determine why one is not considered theft while the other is when the "sharing" is nearly identical.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 1:42 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
In my opinion, if you don't want it to be used for something else, then don't sell it, or make it so it can't be used that way.
hence the booming cybersecurity industry!
quote:
getting back to the libertarian argument, in order to enforce this, then the contractual obligation of the product not only extends to the buyer but everyone else as well, even though it becomes increasingly likely that the other parties will have know knowledge of this contractual obligations. So if the 1st owner does not inform the 2nd owner, then how can the 2nd owner be expected to adhere to the contract if he/she has no ability to provide informed consent?
it's something of an artificial concept for sure. a subsidy for innovation, that will always be difficult to design and enforce such that it's efficient economically
Posted on 5/7/19 at 1:42 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:That is why MS has gone to a lease/rental and limited to a single machine. It's a PITA. As soon as you upgrade your computer, you have to repurchase software. Yet another price we ALL pay for piracy.
In my opinion, if you don't want it to be used for something else, then don't sell it, or make it so it can't be used that way.
This post was edited on 5/7/19 at 4:17 pm
Posted on 5/7/19 at 2:37 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
And how does that make Chinese tariffs a tax on US citizens but not a tax on Chinese citizens?
It doesn’t. But the idea that these so called “libertarians” only care about the US tariffs as punishing ONLY the consumers in the US, and then right off China’s tariffs as “aww shucks” and couldn’t give a shite what happens on their end is just asinine.
Posted on 5/7/19 at 4:15 pm to TeLeFaWx
I think I will drop some real world data here to give some context. Others may have different numbers.
I sell roughly 30,000 "widgets" per month that I purchase from China.
Before the punitive tariffs took place last year, they cost me $0.45 each FOB factory. They have been coming in for years at 5.7%. So, without the shipping, they were ~47.5 cents each.
When the 10% tariff started, it was additional to the existing 5.7%, so the new tariff was 15.7% total. When the 10% went into effect, the factory dropped my price to $0.41 each which kept the cost less the shipping at 47.5 cents each.
When there is a 25% tariff, your goods no longer deal with normal tariff prices, so the 25% is a flat rate. For products that normally don't have duties, the increase is from 10% to 25%, but for this product, the increase is actually from 15.7% to 25%. Like last time, the factory is going to offer some compensation for the increase, and they will drop my price to $0.39 as long as the tariffs remain at 25%. The cost without shipping will go to $0.4875.
The net result for my bottom line is a change from 47.5 cents to 48.75 cents. Shipping is variable, so I see fluctuations in landed costs throughout the year. My customers will not see any changes in what they pay me for the widgets.
I put this information out to muddy the waters. When a duties bill comes in, I am the one that pays it, but in this case you could argue that the Chinese are the ones actually footing the tab.
I sell roughly 30,000 "widgets" per month that I purchase from China.
Before the punitive tariffs took place last year, they cost me $0.45 each FOB factory. They have been coming in for years at 5.7%. So, without the shipping, they were ~47.5 cents each.
When the 10% tariff started, it was additional to the existing 5.7%, so the new tariff was 15.7% total. When the 10% went into effect, the factory dropped my price to $0.41 each which kept the cost less the shipping at 47.5 cents each.
When there is a 25% tariff, your goods no longer deal with normal tariff prices, so the 25% is a flat rate. For products that normally don't have duties, the increase is from 10% to 25%, but for this product, the increase is actually from 15.7% to 25%. Like last time, the factory is going to offer some compensation for the increase, and they will drop my price to $0.39 as long as the tariffs remain at 25%. The cost without shipping will go to $0.4875.
The net result for my bottom line is a change from 47.5 cents to 48.75 cents. Shipping is variable, so I see fluctuations in landed costs throughout the year. My customers will not see any changes in what they pay me for the widgets.
I put this information out to muddy the waters. When a duties bill comes in, I am the one that pays it, but in this case you could argue that the Chinese are the ones actually footing the tab.
Posted on 5/8/19 at 6:26 am to 90proofprofessional
As we head into our third day of shrinking stock market valuation I am still a little optimistic Trump will agree to something this week.
He hates when he hurts the markets.
Of course Ross announced tomato tariffs out of the blue yesterday.
He hates when he hurts the markets.
Of course Ross announced tomato tariffs out of the blue yesterday.
Posted on 5/8/19 at 6:32 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
But does this actually stunt growth?
China steals tech designs
China pours money into production
China pours money and effort into next gen based on design
China rolls out the product
China gears up production for next gen
China allows American companies to review/redesign the Chinese product
China steals those plans
China produces and rolls out the next gen product
Rinse and repeat
Soooooooo...yes, it stunts growth here
Posted on 5/8/19 at 8:45 am to jimmy the leg
Many private Chinese companies want stronger IP too. That will happen.
US companies have plenty protection here and there have been plenty of examples of the use of those protections.
This trade war is about IP laws in China because US multinational companies want to invest in China and want IP protection there. They also want the forced financial partnerships to end and the Chinese have agreed to that too.
I believe the actions this week are because of the interference of hardliners in China backing out of the deal.
Read the 301 and you will understand this much more about doing business in China than about doing business in the USA.
I really do not think US consumers and companies should endure tariffs for the interest of a relatively few US multinationals.
Nonetheless I hope they get the deal done now.
US companies have plenty protection here and there have been plenty of examples of the use of those protections.
This trade war is about IP laws in China because US multinational companies want to invest in China and want IP protection there. They also want the forced financial partnerships to end and the Chinese have agreed to that too.
I believe the actions this week are because of the interference of hardliners in China backing out of the deal.
Read the 301 and you will understand this much more about doing business in China than about doing business in the USA.
I really do not think US consumers and companies should endure tariffs for the interest of a relatively few US multinationals.
Nonetheless I hope they get the deal done now.
Posted on 5/9/19 at 1:12 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:i have merely cited the FACT of ip theft (and asked questions about it that have gone unanswered). no one is denying that it is happening. npc90 is responding to that with some made up conspiracy theory that the trilateral commission is coercing trump into completely unjustified tariffs.
shows that you have little regard for, and/or knowledge about, the issues and implications related to this topic
i asked this to ib and i will ask again: why are people (conveniently) using certain sectors of the economy to oppose tariffs (i.e. episodic) that are a response to ip theft (systemic). now tell me again how i don't know what i'm talking about
quote:90 brings it upon himself with his contemptable, intentionally combative threads and unjustifiable smugness. so you're addressing the effect, not the cause
you seem to take it to another level
quote:you cited one thing and i responded. care to answer the questions i asked? if not, you can retract your hasty evaluation
you appear to be extremely ignorant about the topics you base your attacks upon
Posted on 5/9/19 at 1:31 pm to Allyn McKeen
quote:
Allyn McKeen
I said the other day that China has lowered prices due to the tariffs the other day and one of the balloonheads emphatically stated I was wrong.
Thank you for giving a real world example.
The tariffs have already been hurting China and they are about to hurt a lot more.
Page 14 of 19
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News