Walmart warning us about China


Obama understood business the same way!

Obama once said:

We had a tire case in which they were flooding us with cheap domestic tires — or — or cheap Chinese tires. And we put a stop to it and as a consequence saved jobs throughout America. I have to say that Governor Romney criticized me for being too tough in that tire case; said this wouldn’t be good for American workers and that it would be protectionist.

But I tell you, those workers don’t feel that way. They feel as if they had finally an administration who was going to take this issue seriously.

In 2011:

President Barack Obama hit China automobile tire makers with a trade tariff in 2009 and now Beijing has struck back with a potentially more punitive tariff, as much as a 21% tax hike on U.S. car exports bound for China, the world’s largest auto market.

There’s much more available demonstrating this thing we used to criticize Dems and weird Republicans for doing.


Here’s what I want to know:

Suppose I duplicate the design of an Ipod using all of my own legitimately acquired property, and using my own knowledge and labor. What occult force turns the product of my property and labor into the property of Apple?


What you have described is, to my knowledge, perfectly legal and is not the property of Apple. If you SELL it you have violated laws on patents and copyrights. It is still not the property of Apple but Apple has the right to sue you for damages.


By definition, “property” is something I’m free to sell and trade peacefully (with a few notable and debatable exceptions—e.g. my freedom). By what right does Apple or the state prevent the peaceful selling and trading of my own property?


And yet you think if you successfully copy the result of someone else’s time and expertise, you should be allowed to profit from it while they receive from you no recompense? Is their example not of educational value?


I still don’t understand the moral tension you seem to believe exists in your analogy. As best I can tell, you believe that anytime one person profits from the time and expertise of another, they owe that person compensation, just as if they had paid a teacher to sit in a classroom. But I can’t imagine you could possibly believe that. Suppose I walk into my backyard and see my neighbor skillfully cutting a tree. I observe him carefully, and use that knowledge to go out and get a job as a lumberjack. Do I now owe my neighbor compensation for benefiting from observing and learning from his time and expertise? I mean, if I’m a nice guy I’d shake his hand and take him out for drinks.


By the laws protecting patents and copyrights as authorized by Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 8.


So the state has the right because the state says so. Got it. And presumably if Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 8 banned all private property, you would also take that to be a decisive argument against the right to private property.


I will answer your question: NO.

Will you answer one of mine?

If there was a clause in the Bill of Rights which FORBIDS the government from making any law giving “authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries” would you be OK with that?


I’m still waiting for an answer to my question about what gives Apple and the State the right to forbid me from peacefully selling and trading my own property. I mean, aside from “because the state says so,” which was your previous answer.


The idea behind the I-pad, however, is NOT your “own property,” regardless of how much you think you’ve internalized it. It belongs to Apple…not you.


I expect the difference is commitment to the end game. Don’t know, but Obama may have thought he could “send a message” or something by doing a one-time tariff wack.

President Trump, on the other hand, is NOT sending messages, but seems fully committed to doing what it takes to make China play fair. If that means 500% tariffs all around till China folds, so be it. That’s the stick. But listen to the president speak. He always says nice things about President Xi and calls him his friend. That’s the carrot–a cheap carrot, but it appeals to vanity, which President Trump uses masterfully.

And in the long run, low tariffs in both directions will maximize trade and are good for everyone. So President Trump has a very strong hand and a very strong backbone with which to wield it. May God bless President Trump.


Which is why the Wright Brothers argued that the airplane was “their” idea, so in every place but America, designs improved and iterated for close to 20 years.

In WWI, all the good airplanes were European, because they didn’t have the Wrights sueing to stop production. All of our airplanes were only good as trainers.

On the flip side, it’s partly responsible for why wing warping was abandoned in favor of ailerons.


It’s not property, and we don’t treat it that way.

A Car is mine for as long as I own it, not until 30 years after I buy or build it.

Time limits is an admission that ideas are better off in the public sphere.


If the President “bets the pot”, Xi will fold. While an all out Trade War would hurt our economy, it will destroy China and Xi knows it. Xi’s recent posturing is an attempt to influence the November elections and weaken the President. It ain’t over 'till it’s over.


You want an answer? I’ll give you an answer. You can’t handle the answer since we live in different worlds. I live in the real world with real problems and solutions. You live in a world governed by philosophical and ideological mental masturbation.

OK, here is the practical answer,

  1. In your world starving artists and novelists will actually starve.

  2. Pharmaceutical companies (if they exist in your world) will not spend billions on research and many will die as a result.

  3. All R&D would be pointless. No benefit.

PS What’s the difference between your ideological position and Directive 10-289?


Precedent says No:

They spend billions because of ridiculous FDA rules, not because that’s necessary.
Companies also buyout Patents for things that were supposed to go Generic, and bump up the price.

Again; you can’t copy expertise, industrial capacity, material engineering, and other discipline-focused activity on a whim.

R&D would continue, because you’re under no obligation to show how you did, what you did. What your competitor will eventually make will be different in some way, and you can argue that yours is the original, hence better.


Again, “intellectual property,” in the robust sense we understand it today, is very new to human history. Take Early Modern England, where “intellectual property,” to the extent that it existed at all, was almost purely used for the granting of pernicious monopolies to royal favorites; this period was one of the most intellectually and artistically rich in human history, and without any of the monopoly protections on ideas that some of you consider imperative to progress. It’s a wonder Shakespeare had any motivation at all without those State monopolies!

The fact is, artists and thinkers of that area were constantly borrowing and taking from one another, without fear, and this led to extreme creativity and progress. There is just as much evidence that protectionism in ideas is harmful to innovation, rather than conducive to it.


And that would be fair compensation for what you learned, the basics of a simple mechanical skill.

I take it by your answer that you do believe that someone who pays no tuition or fees to a university (say Harvard), but merely observes the classes and lectures to gain the same education is entitled to the same degrees (and the respect and economic leverage it engenders) as an official student? Would that person then not be entitled to claim to be Harvard educated? The name Harvard is just another example of intellectual property, isn’t it?


The right of them not to have you freeloading on their MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF RESEARCH at the expense of their sales.