BrainNebula
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2018
- Messages
- 237
- Reaction score
- 22
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
China to punish IP infringers after US trade truce
I was upset about Trump freezing tariffs on China until after Christmas, but it seems he got something for it, so I'm less upset now.
Source
I was upset about Trump freezing tariffs on China until after Christmas, but it seems he got something for it, so I'm less upset now.
Source
So let me get this straight. CHINA is going to punish the people they sponsor to steal IP! Ah-huh. Like I have said before, nothing gets done about IP theft either unilaterally or bilaterally. Its takes a coalition and Trump is not even trying to build a coalition. You can't crap on your potential coalition partners and get anything done.
This would fall into the category of window dressing.
Red:
As anyone who's worked multimillion dollar deals with the Chinese, what's seeming and what's so need not at all be the same things.
I was upset about Trump freezing tariffs on China until after Christmas, but it seems he got something for it, so I'm less upset now.
Source
But isn't Lehman bros about to collapse? Are you sure about what year we're in? :lamo
China is now producing a lot of patents, and trademarked goods. Some of its companies are now competitive on the world stage, and will need to be able to earn profits on their R&D expenses. So yes, for the future growth and advancement of the Chinese economy, they will start to enforce patent and IP laws. Now do not expect a high level of enforcement in certain area's like on software like operating systems. At least until China has a reasonable domestic alternative
Red:
As anyone who's worked multimillion dollar deals with the Chinese, what's seeming and what's so need not at all be the same things.
And this is Trump we're talking about.
After every international meeting he makes great claims about all he has accomplished, and then seemingly every time it turns out to be fantasy. North Korea anyone?
As a "free trader" who disapproves of tariffs (other than, as yet, fanciful "optimal tariffs" -- see also: "Optimal Tariffs and Market Power: The Evidence"), I realize the man's imposed the tariffs; thus it's incumbent on me to dispense with normative current arguments and move to positive analysis of the tariffs and the net returns (pecuniary, behavioral, etc.) they're yielding (or aren't).I was upset about Trump freezing tariffs on China until after Christmas, but it seems he got something for it, so I'm less upset now.
Source
Ah, So they are going to protect their own IP. Well hush my mouth....I am SOOOOOOOO happy about that.
The system and the structure of business in China is inherently protective of their own IP. So if in fact they institutionalize that in law, bully for them. How does that help us protect our IP one iota?
Because they are going to want their IP protected outside of China. They are among the top patent holders on 5G technology. That is going to be worth billions if fully monetized. That is tech they developed and will need protected outside of China
And this is Trump we're talking about.
After every international meeting he makes great claims about all he has accomplished, and then seemingly every time it turns out to be fantasy. North Korea anyone?
Because they are going to want their IP protected outside of China. They are among the top patent holders on 5G technology. That is going to be worth billions if fully monetized. That is tech they developed and will need protected outside of China
As a "free trader" who disapproves of tariffs (other than, as yet, fanciful "optimal tariffs" -- see also: "Optimal Tariffs and Market Power: The Evidence"), I realize the man's imposed the tariffs; thus it's incumbent on me to dispense with normative current arguments and move to positive analysis of the tariffs and the net returns (pecuniary, behavioral, etc.) they're yielding (or aren't).
In the calculus of evaluating the merit of Trump's 90-day suspension of the 15% increase in the tariff rate he's levied against various Chinese-made goods, what be the explicitly-stated goal(s) of those tariffs is the reference point for assessing whether the suspension is fitting. The mere fact of his getting "something," is irrelevant. What matters, vis-a-vis that "something" received, is:
- Factor A: Pro-rated for the 90-day period:
- A1 --> The tariffs' explicit pecuniary net returns to US taxpayers, and
- A2 --> The imputed pecuniary value of the qualitative goals realized from tariffs' implementation.
- Factor B: For the 90-period itself:
- B1 --> The net value of whatever the US has, for 90-days, ceded/realized, and
- B2 --> The value of of what the US, from China, received in return.
It's not all hard to "back of the napkin" conceptualize "B's" value:
Using the above model, it's easy to see that:
- "Factor B1"
- B[SUB]1[/SUB] --> Given that the tariffs currently sit at 10% and Trump agreed to deferring for 90 days their increase to 25%, Trump gave up, at the very least, X dollars of tariff revenue receipts.
- B[SUB]2[/SUB] --> Trump averted the GDP drop associated with a 15% increase, for 90 days, in the applicable tariff rates.
- B[SUB]1[/SUB] - B[SUB]2[/SUB] = net gain (loss) resulting from the 90-day rate increase deferral --> B[SUB]3[/SUB]
- What we received from the Chinese:
- A promise to negotiate the nature and extent of Chinese enforcement (or worse, merely terms of enforcement?) of US (international ?) intellectual property rights/laws.
- If B[SUB]3[/SUB] is positive, we gave up money in exchange for what amounts to an empty promise.
- If B[SUB]3[/SUB] is negative, the tariffs shouldn't have been implemented in the first place, unless "A1+A2" is positive.
Now, you stated that you are "less upset now." Well, please explain, vis-a-vis the above model, how much less. In other words, by what rationale did you manage to conclude the value of Factor A is positive?
Red:As a "free trader" who disapproves of tariffs (other than, as yet, fanciful "optimal tariffs" -- see also: "Optimal Tariffs and Market Power: The Evidence"), I realize the man's imposed the tariffs; thus it's incumbent on me to dispense with normative current arguments and move to positive analysis of the tariffs and the net returns (pecuniary, behavioral, etc.) they're yield (or don't).
In ... evaluating the merit of Trump's 90-day suspension of the 15% [bump] in the tariff [he] levied against various Chinese-made goods, what be the explicitly-stated goal(s) of those tariffs is the reference point for assessing whether the suspension is fitting. The mere fact of his getting "something," is irrelevant. What matters, vis-a-vis that "something" received, is:
- Factor A: Pro-rated for the 90-day period:
- A1 --> The tariffs' explicit pecuniary net returns to US taxpayers, and
- A2 --> The imputed pecuniary value of the qualitative goals realized from tariffs' implementation.
- Factor B: For the 90-period itself:
- B1 --> The net value of whatever the US has, for 90-days, ceded/realized, and
- B2 --> The value of of what the US, from China, received in return.
It's not all hard to "back of the napkin" conceptualize "B's" value:
Using the above model, it's easy to see that:
- "Factor B1"
- B[SUB]1[/SUB] --> Given that the tariffs currently sit at 10% and Trump agreed to deferring for 90 days their increase to 25%, Trump gave up, at the very least, X dollars of tariff revenue receipts.
- B[SUB]2[/SUB] --> Trump averted the GDP drop associated with a 15% increase, for 90 days, in the applicable tariff rates.
- B[SUB]1[/SUB] - B[SUB]2[/SUB] = net gain (loss) resulting from the 90-day rate increase deferral --> B[SUB]3[/SUB]
- What we received from the Chinese:
- A promise to negotiate the nature and extent of Chinese enforcement (or worse, merely terms of enforcement?) of US (international ?) intellectual property rights/laws.
- If B[SUB]3[/SUB] is positive, we gave up money in exchange for what amounts to an empty promise.
- If B[SUB]3[/SUB] is negative, the tariffs shouldn't have been implemented in the first place, unless "A1+A2" is positive.
Now, you stated that you are "less upset now." Well, please explain, vis-a-vis the above model, how much less. In other words, by what rationale did you ... conclude the value of Factor A is positive?
1) How do you know that's all we got? For instance, China agreed to crack down on Fentanyl.
2) What if it's a fulfilled promise?
In fact China's right angle into wireless telecom might be one of the greatest threats to western democracy we face. China's own domestic wireless telecom market is gigantic. Hence the scale and scope of their own domestic market is remarkably different anywhere other than possibly India. However China itself is committed to authoritarianism and control of its citizenry and its citizenry simply has shown little in the way of resistance. So little in fact that China is instituting a nationwide Citizen Rating System and its citizenry is simply rolling over for it. We all know what will happen within a National Citizen Rating system.
Are we actually naive enough to think China does not intend using its domestic wireless telecom systems to forward the aims of its National Citizen Rating system? What does that mean for other countries that deploy using hardware and systems developed in China? Clearly both the Integrity of our own personal security and our system integrity will be much diminished in any wireless telecom world envisioned by China. We are all of us such suckers for technology, particularly Smartphone technology.