Utopia Talk / Politics / Unfair Trade Practices

Seb rank	Fri Jan 23 00:08:38 Habebe: Why is tech transfer an unfair trade practice? You use tariffs to repatriate manufacture; and you weaponize dependency, and you use that to try and force other countries to reduce their food and product standards to benefit US producers selling inferior products. It is within a countries jurisdiction to grant protective monopolies on ideas, but there is no reason for any other jurisdiction to do so. Global IP rules work if there is, broadly, free flow of capital, good and services. Since you are actively subverting those ideals, far from complaining about Chinese "unfair practices" we in Europe should be adopting them. There is no reason to pay huge royalties to American firms for easily repeatable ideas implemented on commodity technology we can buy from other parties. None at all. Certainly not when the US is using tarifs on our good exports to encourage the manufacturers to move their production to US soil. By all means, manufacturer your own goods; and we will make our own forks of your firms software. Just as it was when America industrialised on stolen designs.
Habebe rank	Fri Jan 23 01:55:57 Seb, You mistake me for claiming the US doesn't use unfair trade practices. That said, I beleieve*(could be wrong) That the EU forces US pharmaceuticals to limit IP gains for example for cheaper pills.
Habebe rank	Fri Jan 23 02:04:41 Everyone uses tariffs. But DJT uses Tarriffs like China steals IP....on a grand scale.
Sam Adams rank	Fri Jan 23 02:49:10 Seb has a low IQ. Sebs government also enacts lots of red tape and taxes such that high IQ jobs move to America. Seb screams that the high IQ jobs not being his are unfair. Lmfao.
Seb rank	Fri Jan 23 09:04:34 Habebe: We don't force them to. We say "this of the price we are willing to pay, otherwise no deal". You know, supply and demand? This idea that the free market means manufacturers set a price and you *must buy at that price* is madness. The fact you insist on leaving healthcare to lots of tiny, weak organisations with much less market power who generally have to pay what drug manufacturers demand is a structural issue with US healthcare, not the result of unfair trade practices.
Seb rank	Fri Jan 23 09:11:11 Sam: Fact: if we are exporting goods and services to the US, it's because they are better value for money than this US domestic equivalent. It means our workers in that industry are better than yours. Fact: if you are resorting to tariffs to make them less value for money and restore production to poorly trained less efficient US workers, then that's the US creating red tape for US consumers because you can't compete. Please stop bringing your childhood trauma resulting from your neuro diversity being mistaken for idiocy into every conversation.
Habebe rank	Fri Jan 23 17:29:20 Seb, How is that different from Tarriffs, or IP offers? These are all willingly made decisions because the other end still profits.
Sam Adams rank	Fri Jan 23 20:03:21 "then that's the US creating red tape for US consumers because you can't compete." Yes seb we are not perfect. However your incompetence is much worse.
Seb rank	Sat Jan 24 19:02:59 Habebe: Tariffs attempt to increase the cost of foreign products to force domestic manufacture. It's unfair because it targets a particularly country of origin, and it affects access to the entire economy. Countries that operate national health care systems set a price *they* are willing to pay for classes of drugs, largely based on the medical value of the drugs (irrespective of who produces them or where they are produced). Companies can always choose not to sell drugs to the public providers, and sell to private healthcare providers instead. Sam: You accept your initial statement was incoherent rambling, and then accuse me of incompetence.
Sam Adams rank	Sat Jan 24 19:06:05 You are actually retarded.
Habebe rank	Sat Jan 24 23:02:58 Seb, "It's unfair because it targets a particularly country of origin, and it affects access to the entire economy." Trump seems to be levying tarriffs to everyone. And the IP transfer will otherwise affect access to the entire economy. IP is capital , just like money. I get why you say it's not fair, I don't really argue that it is. In both cases the respective nations are using their economic leverage to benefit themselves. Now, it's arguable how beneficial tarriffs are, that's more.pf a case by case situation. He often does nation specific tarriffs because they have greater leverage.
Seb rank	Sat Jan 24 23:36:05 Habebe: No, he's laying differential tarrifs for different countries to secure a positive trade balance with each. He said as much. "IP is capital , just like money" Firstly, Europe hasn't hitherto engaged in forced IP transfer. The US does though, using ITAR (forces European firms to transfer defence relevant dual use tech to US firms). Secondly, no, IP is not capital. IP is a construct of patent law, which is an anti-free market intervention to grant a temporary monopoly to foster innovation by having the innovator publish their innovation rather than keep it a secret and have it potentially die with them rather than eventually become commons, and perfected. This only makes sense internationally *IF* there's free flow of actual capital and goods. If there isn't, because one party is using tariffs and regulations to try and force relocation of supply chains, there's absolutely no reason international patent recognition.
Sam Adams rank	Sun Jan 25 04:44:27 ”ITAR (forces European firms to transfer” Lol ITAR doesn't do that, duncemuffin. Itar basically just says don't give weapons tech to foreigners. But then we make an exception and give you tech, because you are too weak to come up with it yourself. You really should just say thank you and hush up.
Habebe rank	Sun Jan 25 05:55:39 "No, he's laying differential tarrifs for different countries to secure a positive trade balance with each. He said as much. " Ok, so it has nothing to do with the US throwing its weight around one on one and having more leverage. Meh, I don't really care to argue over this TBH. ..... IP is an is absolutely capital. It can be more than one thing. Basically your pissed the US is throwing its weight around unfairly. But are kosher with China doing it because USians back in the day didn't pay IP to use farming tech. Just.for clarification, what are we considering fair and unfair trade practices? Just personal opinions?
Seb rank	Sun Jan 25 18:30:25 Habebe: Nope. You make a widget. I use my own resources to copy a widget. You still have your widget. What you lose is the right to sell me the widget. That right is purely a function of my govts willingness to limit my freedom by granting you a monopoly. This is very different to you having an asset or cash and being allowed to sell it or transfer that across borders. My govt intervening to force me to import your product rather than making my own does not make sense in a world where your govt is blocking our exports and trying to make us import your stuff instead.
Seb rank	Sun Jan 25 18:33:19 Sam: Not directly, but the application generally makes life a lot easier when a non US firm with products using dual use technologies where the supply chain involves the US to transfer it to a US subsidiary.
Habebe rank	Sun Jan 25 21:26:42 Is it worth value? That cash is only valuable because it's backed by the government, otherwise it's colorful paper and cloth fibers with watermarks and straps of metal inside. This is a silly argument. IP is an intangible asset which is capital.
Seb rank	Sun Jan 25 23:40:27 Habebe: "That cash is only valuable because it's backed by the government" Yup, and indeed a government can and occasionally does devalue its currency. Indeed, governments have run capital controls in the not so distant past, preventing currency from being freely convertible. But notice, the UK govt doesn't accept a US dollar in lieu of a pound for payment of taxes (or vice versa) - and this is what you are asking here: that different governments treat the promises of another as having statutory value in their jurisdiction; rather than merely exchange value based on whoever might want something recognised by the issuing govt. If the government erodes the value of your currency by printing more - that is considered entirely legitimate; isn't it? Fiat currency is a construct of the govt that issues it, not binding on a third govt. Like a patent. Neverthless, if you hold a pound, or a dollar, or a euro say - it's your euro. And if I take that Euro from you, you have lost something - something of value if you can find someone who wants a euro, or if you have business in the EU. This is not the case if I, in a country copy your design, patented by another govt. The *only* reason governments issue patents (rather than relying on people obscuring and trying to keep their innovation secret) is to enable innovation by rewarding the innovator. But why do we want to reward people in another country? It only makes sense if there is free movement of capital and goods: then we all benefit from a shared economy. But if there is not a shared economy, if one party is deliberately trying to intervene in the market to create a one way, purely extractive arrangement, as the US policy currently is, then there is no reason to damage our own interests by prosecuting our own people to prevent them copying stuff from someone in another country. Why would we do that? A US patent can guarantee a monopoly in the US market, it cannot guarantee a monopoly anywhere else.
jergul rank	Mon Jan 26 00:25:26 Habebe Seb is correct. US patents do not have unlimited jurisdiction. Besides, the idea behind patents is not to create monopolies, but rather ensure that the inventor is renuminated for his or her efforts. Hence the general limited geographical scope to single countries and the expiration of patents after a certain amount of time.
Habebe rank	Mon Jan 26 01:17:02 Your nation(s) are free to do so barring any agreements and or treaties that we have agreed upon.
Habebe rank	Mon Jan 26 01:19:27 Jergul, I'm not disputing that. I still stand by said patent is capital, plain and simple. It's an intangible asset. A US patent will grant me some exclusive rights in US jurisdictions.
Habebe rank	Mon Jan 26 01:21:22 Can you buy or sell a patent in a respective state? Can you inherit one?
Forwyn rank	Mon Jan 26 03:10:14 A penchant for stealing technology from a superior nation, no wonder Seb loves China. I wonder what the officers' names are at the Uyghur rape camps?
jergul rank	Mon Jan 26 06:22:45 Forwyn The US loves stealing technology. It stole **all** German IP after wwii.
Habebe rank	Mon Jan 26 06:52:08 Oh we absolutely wouldn't have had a space program without that.
Forwyn rank	Mon Jan 26 07:01:48 > wwii Is that the basis of comparison we want to use?
Habebe rank	Mon Jan 26 07:39:44 https://gi...try-against-the-u-s-2000712327 Interesting read, Seb has been sending the WSJ anonymous letters...lol. He will enjoy the article atleast.
Seb rank	Mon Jan 26 09:17:32 Habebe: What, like the agreements on Tariff rates you've repeatedly broken, even ones signed months before you've broken them? Go fuck yourself habebe. Forwyn: The entire US economy is built on stolen technology, and your current biggest growth area is a technology built on stolen IP.
Sam Adams rank	Mon Jan 26 17:01:43 "The entire US economy is built on stolen technology, and your current biggest growth area is a technology built on stolen IP.” Lmfao... The mind of a retarded leftist will invent anything to avoid admitting error and correcting mistakes. In reality: Sebs enact high taxes and red tape. Talent and investment flees to the US. Seb cries THE US STOLE OUR JOBS. Hilarious stupidity
Habebe rank	Mon Jan 26 20:49:53 Seb, You just seem like your up to argue...I'm still snowed in so I'll go along. Are you arguing that Trump has been out negotiating the EU?
Pillz rank	Mon Jan 26 22:02:25 Jergul & seb are on recording wanting WWIII, to see who gets the rights to steal the losers technology. Welp. Maybe they'll learn their lesson from inside the shelters
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: