Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Thu Mar 28 12:12:39 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / Something I love about Trump
Habebe
Member
Fri Sep 18 22:42:13
He has no shame in saying what he wants and getting it.

Remember in GoTs when someone asked what right did Argon have to conquer the 7 kingdoms ( well 6) and they said he took it because he could.

Two examples of that right now are the Scotus appointment.obviously.

And the WTO ruling against the US. It will not stick, why? The appeals court needs x amount of judges to render a verdict, Trump has refused to allownthem to be appointed and somehownhe has that authority.

You cant blame him , defendant in US tradition is to be afforded the best legal defense possible by law, he is merely extending that until he gets favorable judges.
Habebe
Member
Fri Sep 18 22:44:47
Can we get a painting of Trump crossing the Rubicon wearing the red cloak of Mars?
Habebe
Member
Fri Sep 18 22:47:13
http://www...560&dpr=2#imgrc=9WCiB5NunLFZuM
Seb
Member
Sat Sep 19 01:48:15
Short sighted. If you don't obey the spirit of laws, you degrade them.

Political power comes from adherence to rules, literally from the Constitution.

What happens when your population think those rules are essentially worthless?
Seb
Member
Sat Sep 19 01:48:54
True conservatives understand the importance of institutions and the need for restraint in power.
habebe
Member
Sat Sep 19 01:54:14
"Political power comes from adherence to rules"

That may be the dumbest thing Ive ever heard, all due respect.
Seb
Member
Sat Sep 19 04:22:38
You don't have a sense of history.

Without adherence to rules, you can't secure legitimacy, without legitimacy you don't get consent and you have to rely on violence or threat of violence; and your position becomes volatile and in need of constant reinforcement.

Most dictatorships that rely on raw violence and threat of violence are brittle things that spend almost all of their time maintaining control and not doing much, until they implode. Successful ones end up creating laws and bending with those pressures.

What the republicans are doing is different: trying to selectively apply laws to resist pressures building up. The result will be to implode the idea of law having any legitimacy, and with that elections having any legitimacy.

And you will become one of those brittle fractured societies that turn in on themselves.

America is shaping up to be the late 18th and 19th century China of the 21st and 22nd century.

habebe
Member
Sat Sep 19 04:32:56
Well, we know where china thinks political power comes from.

But adherence to rules, which rules? unjust rules? rules that most people agree on? well that may have some merit.

You act like Trump is fhe one killingbthese institutions when they've been dead for a while heyve been propped up like weekend at Bernie. He is merely pointing out that the WTO no longer works and is innefective, much like Romes Senate.

The SC appointment is different in that its just more partisan stunts, not that long ago thw roles were reversed, thw Democrats made it easier for appointees to get through, Mitch just ran with it.
habebe
Member
Sat Sep 19 04:35:41
Where in history has adherence to rules has generally lead to political power?

History seems to favor those who made there own rules.

Did the US follow the rules or rebel?

Britain gauned power by making others follow there rules.
Rugian
Member
Sat Sep 19 04:52:24
That Trump pic. ROFL
Seb
Member
Sat Sep 19 09:25:33
Habebe:

I think the republicans in particular have. Trump takes it to a new level.

"Did the US follow the rules or rebel"

Their literal casus Belli was that the king was ruling by decree and not obeying laws, conventions and rights that applied in England, and their first act was to draft a set of rules.

China indeed operates internally by a set of rules, not arbitrary decree, because despite being totalitarian, it isn't a despotship; though Xi is changing that and it is widely thought to be harming China.

Daemon
Member
Sat Sep 19 09:29:48
"He has no shame in saying what he wants and getting it."

So true:

"And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. ... Grab ‘em by the pussy. You can do anything."
Seb
Member
Sat Sep 19 09:30:36
Rugian:

"Britain gauned power by making others follow there rules"
Doesn't matter at this point who makes the rules, just that there are rules, to they are consistent, and they are adhered to.

One of the reasons the British empire was more successful than other European empires is precisely because the laws imposed were, despite being in many ways iniquetous and skewed, they were often more reliably, consistently and uniformly imposed and enforced than those of the local elites they replaced. Not always but often.

So go ahead, let's see how long your polity lasts with this "rules are only for the others, not for us" approach.

You are trashing the legacy you have been left by your better generations, and burning down your own house.

Nations rise and fall, and America is rotting from within; and you trump supporters don't even understand why.
Seb
Member
Sat Sep 19 09:31:07
*above at habebe not rugian
renzo marQuez
Member
Sat Sep 19 09:31:36
Seb
Member Sat Sep 19 01:48:15
"What happens when your population think those rules are essentially worthless?"

All three branches of the federal government have treated them as worthless for a long time.
Habebe
Member
Sat Sep 19 09:36:14
There is a difference between setting your own rules to go by and just letting chaos takeover.

It may not be the best way to go about it, but what. It boils down to is that the WTO is ineffective currently, it hasn't changed with the times is the US problem.

So we're just shutting it down.There is a strong feeling against Freidmanomics/globalisation.

While its true that free trade has reduced poverty world wide, the benefits havnt spread equally.

Also the elephamt in the room is that we all thought China would have done what most liberalized economies have, which is to liberalize way from authoritarianism/communism.

That didnt happen.
Habebe
Member
Sat Sep 19 09:49:51
Seb, Why should we just sit back and let our competitor get away with murder. Chinese trade practices havnt been solved through the WTO. They steal everyrhing they get there hands on.

So we have a set of rules and some players are given a pass to do whatever they eant and yet we are suppised to be ok with that. It's generally considered tge largest theft in all of history and when we say enough is enough you demonize us and say

" well the US stole IP 200 years ago on a MUCH smaller scale that didn't have nearly the negative impact so it's only fair"

That's BS.
superdude
Member
Sat Sep 19 13:38:24
Here is anthor reason to love Trump.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuNX-i2fbfM
Seb
Member
Sat Sep 19 13:50:06
Habebe:

" It boils down to is that the WTO is ineffective currently, it hasn't changed with the times is the US problem."

WTO is still the mechanism that provides multilateral IP protection. The US is mad about tech transfer etc.

But if WTO is obviously dead, why should we buy expensive OEM products with proper licensing, why not just let the Chinese sell us the exact same products (they make em afterall), but unlicensed?

Hahahaha we can hack the WTO so no disp... Oh. Apple just imploded.

This idea that you are against globalisation is bollocks. Globalisation is required unless you want to keep the top part of the value chain. If you want vertically integrated supply chains, China can steal your IP in weeks and build at a fraction of the price of the US, and there's no reason for any other country not to go with the cheaper product.

The only reason you haven't gone the way of the UK or Germany in terms of industry is precisely because you created this global system that lets you keep control of the top of the value chain.

Trump's policy is the best thing that could happen to China and the developing world frankly. They just need to wait for Europe to give up and cut a bilateral deal with China, and they can play divide and rule against the two biggest developed markets where we don't pay for each others IP.

Biggest dumb move ever frankly.
Seb
Member
Sat Sep 19 13:53:12
Also, you didn't steal IP on a smaller scale, on value terms it was enormous. And it wasn't even truly theft as IP is enforceable only in national jurisdictions.

This idea that dismantling international trade law protects your IP is sheer idiocy.

China's theft and extortion is a miniscule element of what it could do if there is no WTO. For a start they could export freely to the EU, and the EU could freely import it.
Forwyn
Member
Sat Sep 19 14:38:38
"Short sighted. If you don't obey the spirit of laws, you degrade them.

Political power comes from adherence to rules, literally from the Constitution.

What happens when your population think those rules are essentially worthless?"

That's rich, when discussing SCOTUS
habebe
Member
Sat Sep 19 17:53:33
Sen, "WTO is still the mechanism that provides multilateral IP protection"

But it doesn't. Has it stopped the greatest theft of all time? no, thats my point. It's trying to stop a barrage of bullets with a piece of plywood.

"But if WTO is obviously dead, why should we buy expensive OEM products with proper licensing, why not just let the Chinese sell us the exact same products (they make em afterall), but unlicensed?"

You seem to think that this doesnt happen. People dont buy Teslas or Apples because the WTO , heynspend the extra money formthe quality product. You can buy a cheap knock off, but you get what you pay for.

I didnt say I was against globalisation in general, but how it had been enacted and that we got it wrong on many parts.

"This idea that dismantling international trade law protects your IP is sheer idiocy."

So is the idea that those trade laws protected them either. The argument is we are no worse off.

"China's theft and extortion is a miniscule element of what it could do if there is no WTO. For a start they could export freely to the EU, and the EU could freely import it."

we effectivley havnt had a WTO with any power since December, where is the evidence that it has gotten worse?

You seem to have a very weak opinion of the EU. The difference is that iys on the individual authorities instead of tge international body.

I would prefer an international body, but an effective one.

Its a false question to ask do you want a T shirt or a sweatshirt before you get shot at? obviously I want fucking body armor.

It boils down to the fact that you think the wto was effective while evidence is to the contrary.
Seb
Member
Sun Sep 20 01:39:41
Habebe:

The bulk of technology transfers of US Up were agreed to by your own companies so they could use China as an offshore manufacturing base.

That's not theft. That's your idiot execs and billionaires selling their companies futures for short term share price.

If you think that the way to solve this is remove the main mechanisms protecting IP and thys legalise theft, such that the Chinese and anyone else don't even *need* to secure tech transfer, you are in for a trend surprise.
Seb
Member
Sun Sep 20 01:43:46
You realise basically all of the Apple devices are manufactured outside of the US. Much of the quality of the product isn't coming from US. At that point it's not a knock off. It's the same product, same components, just unlicensed.
Habebe
Member
Sun Sep 20 01:51:40
"The bulk of technology transfers of US Up were agreed to by your own companies so they could use China as an offshore manufacturing base."

Cite?

Like I said this may not be the best way to solve it, but obviously maintaining the status quo wasnt working either, so Im open to new attempts.

People are welcome to buy apple knock offs, im sure its done all the time.Yet many people WANT the real thing, and dont mind paying for it.
Habebe
Member
Sun Sep 20 01:51:41
"The bulk of technology transfers of US Up were agreed to by your own companies so they could use China as an offshore manufacturing base."

Cite?

Like I said this may not be the best way to solve it, but obviously maintaining the status quo wasnt working either, so Im open to new attempts.

People are welcome to buy apple knock offs, im sure its done all the time.Yet many people WANT the real thing, and dont mind paying for it.
Habebe
Member
Sun Sep 20 02:21:27
Also like I said we are going on almost a year now with a who with no appeals court, and yet the world hasnt ended.
Habebe
Member
Sun Sep 20 02:22:16
The WTO should go the way of the leadue of nations. Be reformed in a manner that actually works.
Seb
Member
Sun Sep 20 03:24:51
Habebe:

http://www...a-technology-transfer.amp.html

A year is no time at all, especially during a global pandemic.

What you are failing to compute is that IP isn't like physical property where possession is 9/10ths.

IP is non-finite, and what you are asking people to agree with is to compensate you for stealing your idea. We all remember how in the playground some kid would try to claim nobody else could copy the cool thing they were doing because it was their is first.

The US leverage here is "we are a big market and we won't let you sell your stuff if you copy it"; but US relative global size as a market place is shrinking; purchasing power of the mass market is declining due to stagnant wages; and if you onshored production the cost of manufacture would go up so much as to make them non-viable.

There's nothing that China would like more than the WTO to collapse: it's in a far better position to re-write terms of business in its favour.

Seb
Member
Sun Sep 20 03:25:38
By the time you do notice that the lack of effective WTO is resulting in changed trade patterns is the point that it will be too late.
Habebe
Member
Sun Sep 20 03:55:29
Seb. If askinf the WTO to protect our ideas doesnt work, why not try head on. Negotiations.

The EU has a large market. The US has many more negotiating advantages.

For one we have the most powerful military in thw world. Now to clarify I'm not saying we shoupd threaten nations force to agree.

However back to that large market we have sway because of military alliances, the US alone is a big market but we can also bring India ,Japan and several other large markets to agree with us on things to add to our advantage.

We also control the world's default currency, that has advantages.

Just to name a few. If the WTO can't or won't protect our interests, then why shouldn't we do it ourselves.

You admit they arw not protecting our interests. I'm saying that we can do better than they can without them.

Trump has effectively kneecapped Huaweis rise as a global company and reduces it to a national one .

What wvisence do You have that the WTO has been helping thw US cause as of latley nd that we would be better off with it than without it.

You keep saying shit like " you just wait" but these predictions seem to be empty threats with little evidence to support the idea.
Seb
Member
Sun Sep 20 04:08:39
Habebe:

My point is that it does protect your IP, a lot more than would otherwise be the case.

You might as well ask that, if fraud still happens despite the law, why not get rid of law.

Here's the thing: your leverage comes from market size - that's declining in relative terms. But if you block imports, it will be about 5 years if ever before US consumers will have access to affordable products sourced elsewhere. So really, it's a bit of a dumb threat. This is why you've moved on to your own version of forced technology transfers by trying to engineer conditions where successful Chinese companies need to sell out to American owners.

All that does is accelerate the move towards giving up on globally enforced IP.

Either way, you lose. You have already made the case yourself that brand power is more important than the technical IP, and the real way to win (like Amazon) is to look at ecosystem lock-in and constant innovation. Doesn't matter if someone steals last year's idea.

Instead, you are busy setting fire to the entire basis of globally enforceable IP, and all that does is make the manufacturer element of the value chain better positioned to capture the value of the product. I.e. China.

It is literally the dumbest thing the US could do, but hey, it's Trump: go figure.
Seb
Member
Sun Sep 20 04:09:37
"We also control the world's default currency, that has advantages."

It's only default because of the US position in global trade, which you are trying to withhold. No point having dollars if you can't buy and sell stuff with them.

Seb
Member
Sun Sep 20 04:11:52
In the end though, it's your funeral, as brexit will be ours.

The missing middle in your argument is how you expect the current course of action to drive the change you want. Might as well grab ashoe and slam the table.
Habebe
Member
Sun Sep 20 04:15:20
"My point is that it does protect your IP, a lot more than would otherwise be the case."

Cite?

"Instead, you are busy setting fire to the entire basis of globally enforceable IP, "

We are saying reform or die. To continue to do the same thing and expect different results is mad.

You still havnt provided much evidence* that we will regret this....eventually.
Seb
Member
Sun Sep 20 05:51:21
Habebe:

Um, how does that need a cite.

No WTO, no international concept of IP.

Under such circumstances, how would you expect your IP to be protected?
Habebe
Member
Sun Sep 20 06:22:45
The thing is you provide no evidence that qe were better off a year ago.

The the WTO can't effectivley handle arguably the most i.portant trade issue under dispute what is the point?
Habebe
Member
Sun Sep 20 06:28:57
"
No WTO, no international concept of IP."

The concept is kept intact because it was negotiated on a one on one basis.

You also ask why that needed a cite, because if it truly protected IP than we wouldnt have seen the greatest ip theft of all time.

Obviously it was ineffective. Again a t shirt wont stop a bullet, so why would someone argue " well its the best you got" when you could just shoot back shirtless.
Seb
Member
Sun Sep 20 06:49:15
Habebe, saying the WTO can't handle IP theft is like saying the US legal code can't handle murder.

It's just a stupid thing to say. Every developed nation spends billions on checking imports for fraudulent goods etc.

The main issue is that China requires US companies to transfer IP if they wish to outsource, which is entirely legal. All the US companies need to do is, not outsource production.

You want to extend IP protection such that demanding such IP transfer is an illegal practice.

As for cloning products, Amazon is terrible for this. They essentially use insider knowledge gained from Amazon market place to commission Amazon's own knockoffs from China.

Prove to me you have seen the greatest IP theft of all time.

In your metaphor, my point is you can certainly try shooting back shirtless, but you probably want to use a gun, whereas what you are holding appears to be a banana.
habebe
Member
Sun Sep 20 07:12:24
"saying the WTO can't handle IP theft is like saying the US legal code can't handle murder."

That's a false equivalency. There is a reasonable other option, which individual trade agreements.

"Prove to me you have seen the greatest IP theft of all time."

There was a report that noted a 250-600 billion per year loss bybthe US alone to Chinese IP theft. I'll look for the cite, I have to find it.

"In your metaphor, my point is you can certainly try shooting back shirtless, but you probably want to use a gun, whereas what you are holding appears to be a banana."

You still fail to see how innefective the WTO has become recently. Individual agreements and punitive measures may also be innefective, time will tell.
Seb
Member
Sun Sep 20 09:07:00
In what way has it been ineffective.
habebe
Member
Sun Sep 20 09:31:23
That is an absurd question.

But the fact that we have seen consistently for China to steal IP, use forced transfers ( although that's 2ndary) to the tune of up to 600 billion a year from the US.

Its in the best interest of the US IMHO to to put pressure on the WTO to reform. thats my end game, bjt in the mean time fuck that recent ruling which itself even admits that China has been using unfair trade policies, it merely disagrees with how to.fix it. Just showing how innefective it is in its current state.
Seb
Member
Sun Sep 20 10:36:42
Cite for that figure?
habebe
Member
Sun Sep 20 11:12:14
http://www.ipcommission.org/
habebe
Member
Sun Sep 20 11:13:38
It was from the 2017 report. They have pdfs for up to 2019. I have bot read the 2019 report.
habebe
Member
Sun Sep 20 11:21:26
P theft pervades international trade in goods and services due to lack of legal enforcement and
national industrial policies that encourage IP theft by public, quasi-private, and private entities.
While some indicators show that the problem may have improved marginally, the theft of IP remains
a grave threat to the United States. Since 2013, at the release of the IP Commission Report, U.S.
policy mechanisms have been markedly enhanced but gone largely unused. We estimate that the
annual cost to the U.S. economy continues to exceed $225 billion in counterfeit goods, pirated
software, and theft of trade secrets and could be as high as $600 billion.
1
It is important to note
that both the low- and high-end figures do not incorporate the full cost of patent infringement—an
area sorely in need of greater research. We have found no evidence that casts doubt on the estimate
provided by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in November 2015 that economic
espionage through hacking costs $400 billion per year.2
At this rate, the United States has suffered
over $1.2 trillion in economic damage since the publication of the original IP Commission Report
more than three years ago.

Click on the book looking pic of the 2017 update. I'm not sure how to post a direct link to a PDF.
TJ
Member
Sun Sep 20 11:32:20
http://www...mission_Report_Update_2017.pdf
Seb
Member
Sun Sep 20 17:15:08
Their methodology looks dodgy.

Pirated software is a global phenomenon and well established that most pirated software does represent a lost sale.

There appears to be no comparator to show that China is a worse offender than other countries in proportion to it's population or other normalisation. Indeed, their methodology takes estimated for total global counterfeit trade and pro-ratas it to China, essentially suggesting they are no worse than any other country (and indeed the same method could be applied to the US!)

The report is breathtaking in it's hypocrisy in raising chinese barriers to inward investment and market access on one page, then immediately citing the fact that the US pursued a Chinese company on the basis that the Westinghouse design China bought for use at Hinkley point constituted a breach of US export controls.

If this is what you are hanging your complaint off of, no wonder you are not getting far.

There is no actual specific evidence here at all; just scaling a global estimate to Chinese trade volumes and decreeing it a fact.

Pathetic.
habebe
Member
Sun Sep 20 21:16:08
"There appears to be no comparator to show that China is a worse offender than other countries"

Even though They were almost 90% of confiscated shit. However just because others do it doesn't mean it is not a problem.

These people have been caught counterfittjng entire stores. They literally counterfitted an entire Apple store.

Now India has a comparable population and yet they dont seem to be making fake apple stores.

Just because the exact number is tough to pinpoint doesnt mean that evidence doesn't show its happening and on a grand scale.

You have yet to show any evidence that the US is worse off now than from 1 year ago with a functioning WTO that it perceives as ineffective.

Your argument nis like saying in the middle of a battle that you don't know bow many soldiers have shot at, injured or killed so there is no proof its happening.You realize thats absurd.

Its obviously happening, they got caught copying a fucking apple store. Its like an Iceberg ust because you only see the top doesnt mean it isn't much larger.

Even if you just go by what has been caught it is worth protecting.
habebe
Member
Sun Sep 20 21:35:35
This concern is not soley that of the US. The EU also labels them the top concern for such theft.

China continues to be the top priority for the EU because of persistent and longstanding problems. Based on studies from the Commission and the OECD and European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), China remains the origin of most counterfeit and pirated goods arriving in the European Union. More than 80% of the seizures of counterfeit and pirated goods come from China or Hong Kong.

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1813
Seb
Member
Mon Sep 21 07:49:02
Yes, but you are mixing up two different things.

China is where you go to make cheap things.

If you are a fraudster in the West, you go to China, specify they make something, out it comes.

The IP theft doesn't necessarily occur in China just because it's manufactured there, in the same way Apple phones are made in China, but the IP is held in the US (or Ireland it whatever Apple pretends for tax purposes). Indeed it costs Chinese manufacturers what it cost to make them plus their margin. The value is captured by wholesaler and retailer who buy cheap goods, sell at a premium, and may be stealing market share from the IP holder. These wholesalers and retailers are the ones that are gaining the benefit and these are often in the West.

Ideally China would have a robust market surveillance system that would catch exports of dodgy goods; but export controls generally are weak and the string controls on counterfeit goods is on the import side.

A more concrete example of IP theft is precisely this: Amazon cloning designs (they don't quite count as counterfeit), commissioning them to be produced in China.
Seb
Member
Mon Sep 21 07:49:51
I.e. 90% of counterfeit goods coming from China means little in terms of who is actually "stealing" these hundreds of billions.
Seb
Member
Mon Sep 21 07:51:14
Even the estimates are absurd. The main reason for buying counterfeit (knowingly or unknowingly) is because you can't afford the real product. 20% of sales representing real displacement is absurdly high.
Seb
Member
Mon Sep 21 07:55:37
The real issue with China is tech transfer (entirely legal and entirely a consequence of China having a good quality and low cost manufacturing base and a consequence of fair competition, which the West want to clamp down on to get the benefits of Chinese manufacturing while capturing the value in the West); and then direct theft of technology (infringing Western patents and incorporating them into their *own* products for sale without license fees being paid on the global market).

Using estimates based on flow of counterfeit goods to quantify the latter is massive bait and switch.
habebe
Member
Mon Sep 21 08:33:27
"If you are a fraudster in the West, you go to China, specify they make something, out it comes."

1. If you are claiming it is not China, but foriegn companies stealing the IP to and how much, cite? or are these just unfounded assumptions? we should be able to atleast have reasonable estimates , I get it would be tough to get exact numbers due to the clandestine nature of it.

2. Even if that is the case, China is willingly enabling this theft.Look at Duetsche Bank today, they are in hot water for enabling shady money laundering.

Now as I understand it, the biggest concern or atleast high on the list is not counterfitted trinkets but trade secrets and IP theft then going into Chinese companies who may build on that tech even and produce there own goods while screwing US companies to foot the bill of R&D costs.

Now the tech transfer may be a bigger deal, I dint know. Perhaps you have info?

I do know it is a large deal amd seen as unfair. Now it may not be illegal, but neither are the tarriffs/sanctions etc. the US has employed. Its also completely legal for the US to hold up the WTO, thus making all those other actions completely legal.

Legal and fair are not one in the same. The US seen the WTO unable to to protect us from such unsavory tactics, so we took alternative legal options to attempt to correct them ourselves to a more favorable position.
habebe
Member
Mon Sep 21 08:35:39
As for the numbers, they may be high on direct loss of sales but many other things are much harder to calculate esspecially long-term.

Which is noted in the article.
jergul
large member
Mon Sep 21 09:32:40
habebe
You seem very unclear about how capitalism works. China is stealing jack shit.

What you do have is a global market where retailers, wholesalers, distributors and manufacturers might be at fault for supplying unlicensed products to consumers.

A manufacturer getting an order to produce something to customer specifications is not necessarily engaging in IP theft. The customer is.

Governments are of course responsible for upholding laws, regulations, treaties and international rules on trade.

You may want to be a bit wary about ripping up those rulebooks even if doing so is in compliance with your domestic laws.

Every country has domestic laws they can tweak to be in compliance of you see.

But the bit picture is really that China is pwning you in raw intellectual computing power. The systems you put into place to shore up an ever decreasing technological advantage will bite you in the ass shortly as China applies the same principles to prodect its technological advantage.
Habebe
Member
Mon Sep 21 09:56:03
Jergul, Firstly Id ask you the same question I asked Seb when he suggested it was other companies stealing IP, which is to say what evidence s there?

You could say what evidence do we have that it is China, but at the end of the day, they are the ones in possession of said goods.

"You may want to be a bit wary about ripping up those rulebooks even if doing so is in compliance with your domestic laws."

Well, in this regard we are compliance with international laws/rules as well.

Yes, yes in the future they will " pwn" us. We will see
Seb
Member
Mon Sep 21 10:29:51
Habebe:

Burden of proof is on you.

You are asserting that there's 600bn of stolen IP from China.

I'm pointing out that reports methodology is based on a flawed set of assumptions.
Seb
Member
Mon Sep 21 10:33:14
There is a law that bans banks from doing X,y,z.

There may be laws that a Chinese manufacturer of counterfeit goods are breaking (normally this will be copyright related) but that's not where the crime is necessarily happening.

And we don't say Germany is at fault and go after Germany generally.

You mentioned that the Apple store: notably the employees thought they were working for Apple.
jergul
large member
Mon Sep 21 10:35:09
habebe
China is already powning you.

Which companies specifically are stealing US IP? You are asserting crimes. What companies are guilty of the crimes? Walmart? Tesla? Who is comissioned products without owning the licence and is selling stolen IP to consumers?


Note I am asking for companies. China is a nation-state, not a company. It does not need to steal IP as it can simply expropriate patents and intellectual property according to the rules set by its domestic legislature.
jergul
large member
Mon Sep 21 10:37:08
"Various articles in the popular media, speeches by policy-makers, and reports to Congress have stated that the United States graduates roughly 70,000 undergraduate engineers annually, whereas China graduates 600,000"

pwn.
Seb
Member
Mon Sep 21 10:41:17
As for "unfair", that's debatable.

If I know how to make something, have the capability to make it, only I can make it affordably, why do my potential customers and myself be barred from doing that?

There are various invocations about the need to protect innovation to foster it in order to reward innovation.

This is the source of IP law in the West. But this is less clear on a global scale. You may choose to give Apple a monopoly on some product features in your markets, but why should anyone else?

And why should it be as open ended as a monopoly?

It's not unfair for a manufacturer to say "I will only manufacture this for you if you transfer some of the IP to me".

If it turns out that the only way that the company can get it's goods produced at the desired price point is with that manufacturer, then it demonstrates that the manufacturer is bringing something valuable to the table: the actual ability to execute, without which the IP is valueless.

Claiming this is unfair, and that manufacturers ability to capture value from their unique selling point is absurd.

China, bluntly, shouldn't agree to that. Either find other offshored manufacturers, or accept that there is no market (or smaller market) for that product at the price you can produce it, and the IP is worth less than you'd thought.
Seb
Member
Mon Sep 21 10:41:44
Either way, you don't get to make up a 600bn figure using no direct evidence of activity in China whatsoever.
Seb
Member
Mon Sep 21 10:46:26
You say WTO is unable to protect, but you are incorrect.

WTO requires importers do market surveillance on counterfeit products, limiting the losses from displacement.

It provides a basis for pursuing counterfeit manufacturers.

It provides a basis for third countries importing goods to recognise patents etc. and means of retaliation.

What it doesn't do is guarantee nobody anywhere will manufacturer a counterfeit product.

What it doesn't do is give you magic leverage to capture value from a manufacturer that you can't gain in a free negotiation.

Tech transfer is legal, and as a free marketer and consumer, I'm far from clear it ever should be made illegal. If your business model requires Chinese manufacturer to hit the margins you need, Chinese manufacturers are entitled to negotiate whatever terms they want in a free market. Your companies can walk away. That's a negotiation.
Habebe
Member
Mon Sep 21 11:16:12
Seb , "Burden of proof is on you.

You are asserting that there's 600bn of stolen IP from China.

I'm pointing out that reports methodology is based on a flawed set of assumptions."

And you are asserting that its not these chinese companies but western companies using t hese Chinese companies... But your pulling such info out of your ass apparently. I posted a cite for my info, its your choice to not beleive it. I have no desire to try and persuade you otherwise past this.

"There is a law that bans banks from doing X,y,z.

There may be laws that a Chinese manufacturer of counterfeit goods are breaking (normally this will be copyright related) but that's not where the crime is necessarily happening.

And we don't say Germany is at fault and go after Germany generally."

And we have laws protecting IP, the tech transfer is merely a dispute amongst nations, we dislike it so we seek to change things by using what options we have available, we seen the WTO as unable to do so we took matters into our own hands.

Also there is a difference between Germany and China. China is deemed a market economy where as the ccp is entwined much more closely than in Germany.

As for what is unfair, in the US we view this as unfair. You do not have to. It is legal. We merely responded LEGALLY with things like tarriffs, sanctions, forced sales of Chinese companies etc. We have broken no laws either. This is a dispute between the US and China. Both nations have acted in there best interest as we see fit.

In general you can see things how you will. The US in general sees things differently. We didnt likenthe Chinese actions so we acted in a way to counter them AS WE SEE FIT. The US is not in violation with any WTO laws, we cant be since we legally have blocked its appeals judges. Again a legal action that some may see as unfair.But it is legal.

If you assert this will hurt us, then why should it bother you? You generally disagree with US policy anyway, sonyou should be happy to see us fail.

Jergul, I will reply to you, but I havnt read them yet is all.
Habebe
Member
Mon Sep 21 11:19:16
Jergul, Much less than I thought.

So with all of those engineers, hey are the world's economic and military super power with the current reserve currency, Right?

Man they really pwned us.Im sure India has more engineers than we do as well. Supose that means we are just a regional power now, huh.
Habebe
Member
Mon Sep 21 11:28:39
Jergul, As for which companies, I cited my source. Feel free to google specifics. It's an autistic question that doesn't deserve my time to research it.

And again the EU also states roughly the same complaints. India, Japan, Australia and the UK have also begun to side with the US more and more, so it is not soley US.

Seb
Member
Mon Sep 21 11:41:45
Habebe:

So far, you've presented no evidence of actual malfeasance by China at all.

All the report you've presented does is say "here's an estimate of the global cost of counterfeited goods etc. pro rata, based on trade volumes, China must account for 600bn".

That's the definition of pulling evidence out of your ass.

Seb
Member
Mon Sep 21 11:43:03
"we seen the WTO as unable to do so we took matters into our own hands"

Right, ok, but break the WTO, and then EU can legitimately ask why it shouldn't import Chinese goods that outright steal US tech.

This is not the genius move you think.
Seb
Member
Mon Sep 21 11:43:37
As for unfair, boo hoo. Build your own manufacturing base that can compete with China.
jergul
large member
Mon Sep 21 11:46:34
Habebe
Well, the US has had a pivotal advantage in IP holding since 1945 when it stole German patents wholesale. It takes a while for Chinese intellectual bandwidth to dwarf that historical advantage.

Your source did a handwave and pulled a number out of its ass.

Ach, seb said out of ass first.
Habebe
Member
Mon Sep 21 11:57:04
Seb, You are the one lobbing accusations with NO evidence just random theories pulled out of tour ass. I cmaimed up to 690 billion, and cited my source, you disagree on that amount being too high , but you also mention nothing about the fact that ita really much higher but we have no way to reasonably quantify it so I left it at that number.

It was on me to cite evidence. I cited official government reports. You have nothing but your word as evidence " western" companies are secretly at fault.

Boohoo? Your the one crying because we took LEGAL actions. Your then one crying afoul. We are dealing with what we see* as unfair to us by using whatwver legal means we have at pur disposal.

You might see us blocking judges as unfair, but again thats your opinion.

The EU COULD take actions that the US wouldnt like because of this. But lets face it the EU is almost useless these days. What means do you have to effectively do anything outside of ypur borders? At least China can project its powers within foreign spheres of influence.

If the EU did something like that then we would likely retaliate like we did to France over the social media tax, we dropped a tax on luxury goods, so what?
jergul
large member
Mon Sep 21 12:06:18
Seb
This is like watching post war European powers fucking up decolonialisation in real time.

We are truly blessed to live in such interesting times.
Habebe
Member
Mon Sep 21 12:15:22
I think it boils down to euros in general being annoyed at US arrogance. We do have an attitude that our shit doesnt stink. When Europe was the preeminent power in the world it did the same, actually much worse.
jergul
large member
Mon Sep 21 12:26:16
Habebe
We are annoyed by rule through decree. What you cite as LEGAL is something any crackpot dictator could do.

At least the UK is running its disregard for international agreements through its legislation.

Its not QE enacting a royal decree ripping up the good friday agreement.
habebe
Member
Mon Sep 21 12:40:46
jergul, We are acting in full accordance to the law and the rules of the WTO.

Its no different than the forced trade transfwrs Seb spoke of before. It may annoy some people, but it's completely legal.bynthe current standard.
habebe
Member
Mon Sep 21 13:06:13
I shpukd point out that Brussels has bwen scrambling to do 2 things.

1. Address the Chinese trade practices that the West and other Asian nations disaprove of. Sobthats great, I would like to see the WTO up and running again eventually with better agreement amongst nations.

2. Temporarily sidestep with a temp. system to work without the US. They have plenty of support However the US, Japan and Russia have all opted to not be a part of that temporary body

So in the mean time we will apply pressure however we can, and strive to get the WTO to become relevant again.
Seb
Member
Mon Sep 21 16:29:40
Habebe:

Your source is explicit in its methodology section.

~your source does not say "China steals 600bn." It says "China is estimated to steal", and then provides the basis for this estimate.

You could apply the same methodology in exactly the same way to calculate the US steals an equivalent (100 of billions).

"Your the one crying because we took LEGAL actions."

Your actions are not legal - there is a requirement to act in good faith, and actively sabotaging treaty organisations is a breach of your obligations to us as your treaty partners, largely based on your frustration that you want to expand the treaty to cover areas that it does not cover.

Why should we ever negotiate a treaty with you again if you are dishonest, do not act in good faith, and sabotage those treaties?

It's a pointless waste of time.
Seb
Member
Mon Sep 21 16:31:55
jergul:

The UK isn't ripping up the good friday agreement, it is ripping up clause 4 on direct effect of EU legislation in respect of Northern Ireland.

As it happens, for various reasons good reasons I cannot divulge, I actually agree with the UK govt on this one: the EU is essentially weaponizing the GFA to secure concessions on fish and attempting to strong arm us into an EFTA type agreement we do not want.

The govt is, however, fucking up its response very badly by trying Trump style tactics.
Seb
Member
Mon Sep 21 16:38:29
Your mistake, Habebe, is to think international law is purely based on positive law.

It may be technically true that refusing to appoint WTO arbitration panel is not breaking any law, but it is absolutely not how the system was envisaged to work and it is clearly deliberate frustration.

We may not be able to do anything about it, but unlike the US constitutional framework, we are not stuck with this kind of issue.

Nor is it like the forced tech transfers: those are secured by the bargaining power individual companies have, entirely within free market rules, not by frustrating the terms of a treaty you signed up to because you don't like the outcome of the rules you agreed to.

We can just ditch the WTO and negotiate bilaterally with the Chinese, as the EU is doing, and when we do so we have not obligation to include respecting US patents or IP.

It's a poor alternative to a multilateral framework, but the US has sabotaged a multilateral framework, so eventually, this is what will happen if Trumpish strategies persist.

The EU is a bigger importer than the US, and so it hold more leverage on these issues than the US does; and the Chinese EU mutual investment pact negotiations are already underway.

We shall see what happens.
Seb
Member
Mon Sep 21 16:39:44
"US, Japan and Russia"

Japan has a FTA with Europe with its own dispute resolutions; the US is gonna do what it is gonna do, and Russia is tiny and unimportant in trade terms.
Seb
Member
Mon Sep 21 16:40:43
Jergul:

"This is like watching post war European powers fucking up decolonialisation in real time."

Yup.
jergul
large member
Tue Sep 22 01:32:29
Seb
The GFA is actually a limitation on UK sovereignity. It might very well force an EFTA type outcome to BREXIT.

Now that is only permanent for as long as NI is part of the UK, so it could be revisited at a later date.
Seb
Member
Tue Sep 22 01:56:58
Not correct. It also limits Irish sovereignty too. The NIP allows all to be satisfied, and the EU signed that, so the idea that only an EFTA arrangement satisfies the GFA is not correct (or at least, rejected by the EU, RoI and UK as the bill is specifically designed for that purpose and based on North sea checks to allow RoI to meet its obligations to the EU.)

The issue is the EU going slow on the NIP implementation agreements in the JC to try and pressure the GB-EU elements oh the deal, particularly refusal to progress POAO listing status without commitments on fishing quotas at CFP levels and dynamic alignment on food, environmental standards and HMG giving up right to set a broad range of competition policy (i.e. tax, environmental law etc). This is, well, very Trumpian in that it frustrates the WA in several key ways: firstly it's negating the entire intent of the treaty which was to allow the UK to leave under WTO style terms, secondly it's breaking the fundamental point the EU insisted on, that NI peace should not be leveraged in trade negotiations, and thirdly is trying to strong arm the UK into a relationship it fundamentally doesn't want rather than secure mutually acceptable if unsatisfactory terms.

The impact of POAO listings in particular would be to cut off most food trade NI and GB.

The UK should have cited this clearly and invoked dispute resolution immediately, and reminded the EU of its powers under the WA regarding social and economic crisis.

Instead it decided to try and prove it was serious by passing a law that breaks the WA initself, and without laying the groundwork.


Handed an opportunity to size the high ground, they floundered. Also very trumpian.
Seb
Member
Tue Sep 22 02:00:41
Incidentally, the UK can even use all the powers this bill gives them and still keep the GFA, provided we implement checks in the North Sea conforming to EU standards on goods moving from GB to NI.

It's up to the EU if it wants to insist on a land border because it won't actually discuss the NIP implementation with the UK until we agree to give the EU 80% of our fish quota and commit to dynamically align food standards.
Seb
Member
Tue Sep 22 02:04:59
Just to be clear, poao listing status isnt about what standards you demand your food adhere to, it's about whether your supply chain has enough regulatory controls to guarantee that food produced that claims to meet EU standards does in fact do so.

The UK may change its food standards, i.e. let in chlorinated chicken, but not the regulatory enforcement framework, and would still be able to guarantee for products entering NI were exclusively those meeting EU standards.

The irony is the biggest concern is we would harmonise to US food standards in part. The US has poao listing status.

What next, the EU demands we unilaterally disarm or it will block POAO listing and the would break the GFA? Give me a break.

The EU is dead wrong on this one.
Seb
Member
Tue Sep 22 02:09:57
Anyway, the UK isn't going to agree to dynamic alignment I think; so it's highly likely there will be no deal for EU-GB trade.

The NIP is supposed to work in that instance, and according to its terms the EU has already conceded that low risk goods can move from GB to NI without checks, the UK has conceded high risk goods will be subject to standards checks and tariffs with rebate only if no onward movement can be shown. The EU has conceded that nothing should fetter NI to GB trade and that NI is part of GB customs territory (so no basis for export decs NI to GB movements).

So there isn't really that much to disagree on. Yet the EU has refused to discuss NI implementation in meaningful terms.
Seb
Member
Tue Sep 22 02:10:59
It's like Ukraine all over again: confusing trade talks with high geopolitics
habebe
Member
Tue Sep 22 04:12:32
Holy posts batman, I'll respond later when I have time to read it all. But for a start....

Lets start with the 200-600 Billion in alleged theft.

There is no argument saying there is not large scale IP theft. The argument is on valuation, as you yourself pointed out people who cant afford product X buy the knockoffs. So while the value may be off, large scale tgeft IS happening, the 600 figure is merely valuing it at full retail cost.

This figure does NOT even factor in patent infringement, mainly because AFAIK we dont have much research into that area. If you had any info on that, Id be welcome to see it.

Now we're going back to the 80% or so of of counterfitted goods coming from China. It is possible that western companies are responsible, but you have not provided any evidence, so as of now the best evidence is that its coming from China AFAIK*. Again Id be welcome to see any evidence to the contrary , that is a claim where the burden of proof is on you.

As for the good faith clause, that is a matter of opinion. The US position is that the WTO had failed to provuse adequate protections and since we feel we had to negotiate on ourselves we want the power to do that and would like to see the WTO change, you can disagree on the tactics, but it is a means to add pressure fornit to remedy things.

You seem fine with allowing Japan to negotiate for itself by not the US?

Again its a matter of opinion. We see this as actung in good faith by adding pressure to enact change within the rules bybusing our veto power.

It very well could backfire.

Why would you trade with us? its in your own geedy interest. The US provides Europe access to a large market.As of bow I beleive the worlds largest market after brexit and Covid have knocked the EU down a bit, but its roughly the same as we habe 3 large world markets all of which are similar* in size tge US, China and the EU.


The rest looks like you and jergul and the EU/GB.


jergul
large member
Tue Sep 22 05:28:49
Why is "access to a large market" even a thing? Any country with a sizable population can digitalize IOUs.

We have established that lots and lots of privately owned retailers, wholesalers, distributors, and manufacturers play a role in IP theft.

Why do you keep on mentioning a nation-state in that context?

I will bet you anything that Los Angeles port authority plays the key role in facilitating the entry of illicit goods. Why not point your finger at it for lax and haphazard dealings with IP infractioners?
habebe
Member
Tue Sep 22 05:48:37
"Why is "access to a large market" even a thing?"

Uhm, because people around the world want to do business with us. Supply and demand should even understood by communists.

As for your silly argument about the LA port authority, where do you think these seizures of illegal chinese goods take place?

Its a fact that the VAST majority of illegal goods comes into the US from China. This is something that US businesses have complained to our government about and so it took action.
jergul
large member
Tue Sep 22 06:03:56
You have demand and others have supply. That is what you think supply and demand dynamics mean?

Wow.

The vast majority of everything comes from china.

What is your end game? You do see at some point that the demand for US IOUs is going to dry up, right?

Both the EU and China are on their own about as important importers as the US is.
Seb
Member
Tue Sep 22 16:25:35
Habebe:

"he US position is that the WTO had failed to provuse adequate protections"
What aspect of the present WTO agreements in your mind are not working, and in what specific ways are they not working?

There's no material breach of the treaty, you are undermining it. Why should we negotiate with you in future if you cannot be trusted to keep your word?
Seb
Member
Tue Sep 22 16:28:06
Japan can negotiate on its own, but it is not breaking the multilateral frmework.

The US has reneged on at least two important treaties with Europe: the Iran deal, and the WTO.

Europe is in wait and see mode. If trump is re-elected I expect some major shifts in trade policy.

Habebe
Member
Tue Sep 22 16:47:47
http://ust...e_World_Trade_Organization.pdf

Here is the USTR report about its complaints abput the WTO.
Seb
Member
Tue Sep 22 17:24:40
"The Appellate Body acts contrary to this agreement text by arrogating to
itself the authority to “deem” former Appellate Body Members as continuing Appellate Body
Members for the purpose of issuing reports in appeals that began before their terms expired. "

Oh no! This is terrible. Especially in light of the first complaint that appeals are taking to long. Obviously, if the report hasn't been completed before the writers term expires, we should just start again.

This is just Trump admin bullshit to justify their sabotage of the appeals body.

You could negotiate these with members, instead, you sabotaged the WTO, conveniently just as you kicked off a trade war which breaches WTO rules.

Why should we negotiate with treaty breaker than has shown it cannot be trusted to stick by its word?
Habebe
Member
Tue Sep 22 19:45:15
"This is just Trump admin bullshit to justify their sabotage of the appeals body."

What sonyou think his motivations are?
Habebe
Member
Tue Sep 22 19:51:14
"Why should we negotiate with treaty breaker than has shown it cannot be trusted to stick by its word?"

Well, you dont have to. The US chooses not to do business with people we don't like all the time.

By we do you mean the UK or people in general?

The UK would likely want to trade with the US because it doesnt seem like the EU wants to and we have very close military and political ties.

As for people who back on deals didnt the UK just back out of the EU?
jergul
large member
Wed Sep 23 04:12:47
I wonder how strong the correlation is between the US choosing to not do business with people and increases to Government debt.

Currently at 130% of gdp. Don't worry though, it does not get like Greece until 170% of gdp.
show deleted posts
Bookmark and Share