Walmart warning us about China


Most of the objections I’m seeing are based on the fact that we have bad patent and IP laws, and I’m quite sure that is true. I feel relatively certain (without knowing a darn thing about it, mind, just based on the general run of things in this country) that current IP laws benefit large corporations the most (except of course for the IP lawyers themselves, who would absolutely hate a simple and fair code of law). I am even willing to be convinced that having no IP law would be better than what we have now (our government is certainly capable of producing garbage laws we’d be better off without–Obamacare comes immediately to mind).

But i cannot imagine being convinced that the person who works and invests to create something new does not become the primary rights holder of the resulting product.


It’s that it fails the property test, and bottlenecks innovation.

It’s inconsistent to what property is, and not worthwhile; abuse is simply crap on top of the bad furniture.

More innovation happens in software than in our meatspace, because “rules” like owning an idea, are far more loose/unenforced. Or just blatantly not supported.


I’ve heard that. We’ve had mandatory hookup here due to groundwater contamination, which means the minimum water bill, but some folks have wells they use anyway or at least use for everything but drinking and cooking.

The principle of the thing is the same, which is why I raised it. If you agree that you should be able to sell a thing you managed to invent because you have the knowledge in your head, you’re making a distinction between that knowledge and the knowledge you gain by looking at a product. I’m curious why you think that distinction matters. The government doesn’t. It awards a monopoly on an idea to the first person to hit the patent office.

How would you feel if you invent something and find out someone else already owns the idea?


It’s happened a couple of times that I had an idea, checked it out, and found it was already under patent. Someone else got there first. SHRUG It happens.


It bottlenecks innovation.

they lock in incumbents’ advantages and drive up the costs of new technology, such protections are associated with less new or follow-on innovation, weaker diffusion, and increased market concentration , and increased market concentration.

A bad system is a bad system. Your acceptance of your own chances being diminished doesn’t change that, it adds to the fact something that shouldn’t be happening, is.


But it doesn’t mean that there should be no system at all.

You aren’t going to convince me that the true innovator or inventor doesnt deserve to be acknowledged and compensated for what he adds to the human knowledge base or quality of life.


I don’t agree that the principle is the same. It’s the difference between honest effort and- as I have mentioned- freeloading on someone else’s pain. I can’t even imagine why this is controversial.


There was a line in “Jurassic Park” that is a bit apt. I can’t quote it directly, but it went something like: “You people haven’t earned the right to clone these extinct animals. You took the work of others and applied it to something that even they hadn’t intended. You were so busy wondering IF you could do it, you never bothered considering whether or not you SHOULD do it.” The point I’m making is just because you can COPY the work of others, doesn’t mean you have the RIGHT to do so. YOU didn’t come up with the idea and YOU didn’t do the necessary research and fabrication it took to CREATE a product, so you have no “right” to any proceeds from other’s hard work.


I can, so long as I don’t trespass you to do it.

You don’t own the idea, that’s an artificial right, which only exists as an act of Government.

I say again; software sees more turn over in innovation than hardware these days, because IP is far harder to enforce, or simply isn’t bothered with in the case of the former.

It’s a result we should acknowledge, if innovation, the turnover in ideas, is the goal.


It doesn’t add any value. It doesn’t even do, on net, what it claims to do; motivate innovation.

You’ll never get me to believe that it is right for someone to sue someone else who came up with the idea independently.

You also can’t answer to the fact that innovation is spured on, humanity’s condition is observably improved, when IP is willfully violated.

All nations did it to industrialize, every single one of us.


Pappadave, it’s also called “plagiarism”. Plagiarism can get a student dismissed from school or a failing grade in a class.


In the real world, you can look at a text book while doing what you need to. No one calls that cheating like they would for a test.

So no, evaluating comprehension, isn’t the same as doing.

the immature poet imitates and the mature poet plagiarizes.

– T.S. Eliot


And what was his contriburion, exactly? Lack of punctuation? Or am I confusing my poets… ?

EDIT: Nah, the no punctuation poet was ee cummings, wunnit? Damn me if i can remember why T.S. Eliot is famous…


He’s pointing out the relevant part of the human condition here; we don’t create things in a vacuum, as such, we make greatness, by taking ideas off one another.

Again, we have the evidence for this. Nation accelerate their industrialization, by ignoring IP. Can’t argue with results.

Property rights in general work the opposite way. Failing to acknowledge them tends to create failure.
It equally points out that there’s a qualitative difference.


Only fully for the first year and only in his first term at all. I’ve always given him high marks for his first year. One of his first acts as president was to sign an executive order that all government contracts had to be fulfilled with domestic suppliers. He also increased border enforcement and started processing a bunch of Bush’s “backlogs” in the deportation process. He even explicitly said that American companies were using illegal immigrants to drive down domestic wages. Part of his initial immigration reform program did include an amnesty, but also included overhauling our current system to add a merit system. He also suggested he was open to a lower corporate flat tax. He maintained this perspective for all of about 9 months.

But not long after he proceeded to fill his administration up with the entire board of Goldman Sacs, and he started rapidly sliding to the Koch Inc view of trade and labor. He decided that maybe DACA and the TPP were great ideas after his re-election.

In essence, Obama started out with some decent ideas, but never really got around to implementing them. Then he started running the country’s trade and immigration policy the way you would. With predictable results.


Yeah no:

And you’re not getting points for vouching for what is a known fascist standpoint, that is a equally known failure.

You can act coy Cwolf, but you can’t hide the fact that protectionist ideas fail IRL. They have no trend line that points to success; only the failure that gave us the 1930s, and the creation of the WTO in reaction to it.

Emphasizing identity politics, in any form, doesn’t increase economic prosperity or efficiency. No reason we would expect it to.

Economic merit is blind to such things.


You are once again either not reading the article Google provided or going off on a Modafinil fantasy.

That talks about domestic businesses using foreign acquisitions to shift headquarter locations to dodge taxes. Which has nothing to do with economics, and everything to do with government revenue.

Using tariffs and the threat of tariffs as leverage for trade negotiations has proven effective. If you want to try to redefine words go nuts. This strategy is actively working right now.


You’re not thinking it through.

Companies invert production Overseas; what did Trump suggest? Raising tariffs to punish them.

Companies invert their headquarters overseas, what does Obama suggest? Taxing them to punish the avoidance.

Taxes are at the center of the issue in both cases, and give us economic consequences. If Trump or Obama was only going after the companies with harsh words, who the hell would give a damn?

Meanwhile; “Economic patriotism” from Obama just keeps popping up, like the 2012 campaign trail:

And his 2011 tariffs on tires:

You got him wrong on this Cwolf.

Nope, it just made the NAFTA framework even more protectionist, and plans to punish the positive outcome in Mexico of their becoming one of the largest automakers in the world, by making their cars less competitive.

It doesn’t make us more free. Nor does it “fix” the trade deficit. Improvements like the elimination of subsidies, were already apart of the canned TPP.

It’s going to overshore other auto-manufacturing completely out of North America due to the cost; a weird thing to invite, considering Ford already doesn’t make any car here besides the Mustang.

But if your only attempt to justify it, is as a negotiation tact, then I’ll take that as progress in your recognition that protectionism, doesn’t work as policy.


Nonsense. Ford has a pickup truck manufacturing facility in Louisville, KY–hardly a foreign country. I have family members who WORK there.


I said “car” Dave:

It’s much more cost effective to build sedans and hatchbacks, entry-model automobiles, somewhere else. Which, due to this deal, likely won’t mean Mexico, but someplace outside North America.

The Focus Active won’t be built here. Only the Mustang.