Another story from earlier today quite sickens me, that a Kansas Judge labeled two girls involved in a sexual abuse case with a 67 year old man "the agressors". Both girls were under 15, but the judge said because they went to the man's house "Voluntarily", that they were complicit in the abuse. He sentenced the man to 5 years and 10 months in jail for soliciting sex with young girls over the internet, which is far less than Kansas Guidelines call for. One of them was only 13, and the judge called the older girl a "pimp" for her sisters.
Both girls would go over to the man's house to clean it for money. At 13, you can't collude in anything, being unable to give consent (by legal definition). I think this judge should be run out of town on a rail.
And Kim Jong Un called Trump's Administration a "Billionaire's club" with "A policy of racism" who denies the freedom of the Press and health care to his people. How did we get to a point where a dictator could say such things about America and be absolutely correct? And somehow look BETTER than the US?
Huawei is suspected of trying to steal new technology from a small American startup. The FBI is still investigating, but if it's true, then China's attempts to steal technology are even more widespread and deep than we'd ever assumed.
It's a grim prospect. Chinese IP theft has already stolen billions from the United States and other advanced economies; much of China's GDP is based on hacking and theft of information and technology. If this new story bears out, it means that China is willing to seek out valuable technology to steal anywhere, even from a tiny startup company.
Chinese IP theft has long frustrated me. People will praise China's government for raising GDP, but so much of China's economic "progress" is based on (1) stealing innovations, (2) hacking into competing companies and stealing business plans, (3) sweatshops and labor abuses, (4) pouring money into useless infrastructure projects, (5) a lack of safety precautions for workers and consumers that would cut into profits, and (6) low-cost, high-pollution industry practices that are good for profit margins but bad for the environment of China and the world as a whole. So much of the economy is based on producing low-cost, low-quality knockoffs instead of actually creating new things.
Given the source of China's wealth, and given how China's wealth is distributed within China, it's not clear to me that all that money is actually benefiting the world, or even the people of China. It just looks like rich industrialists making themselves even wealthier by eating up existing resources, rather than entrepreneurs making new innovations and creating new markets.
I never placed much value on the power to accumulate wealth. I am not impressed by people who make money by gaming the system, or earning interest on existing wealth, or buying out their competitors, or inheriting money, or cutting costs to increase profit margins, or lobbying the government for special treatment, or running parasitic industries like gambling, addictive drugs, or health insurance. I am more impressed by entrepreneurs and inventors, people who actually create something that otherwise would not exist.
So, I was reading the news and there was a post on a Law blog about how the Trump Administration *intended* to traumatize Children as a further deterrent to coming to the US, which is just... horrendous (i'll post the article in my politcs thread. Senator Jeff Merkley (D. Oregon) released the memo to the press, but I don't remember hearing anything about it.
And, possibly the most crass thing he's ever done... Trump sent around an email to his supporters, promising to show their names live during his State of the Union address if they sent him $5 in the next 3 hours. In effect, he's selling Ad space... during the State of the Union address. It's sickening. Truly sickening. But I can honestly say I'm not really surprised. In the words of an Officer Fitrep. "He has reached rock bottom and has started to drill.
Huawei is suspected of trying to steal new technology from a small American startup. The FBI is still investigating, but if it's true, then China's attempts to steal technology are even more widespread and deep than we'd ever assumed.
It's a grim prospect. Chinese IP theft has already stolen billions from the United States and other advanced economies; much of China's GDP is based on hacking and theft of information and technology. If this new story bears out, it means that China is willing to seek out valuable technology to steal anywhere, even from a tiny startup company.
Chinese IP theft has long frustrated me. People will praise China's government for raising GDP, but so much of China's economic "progress" is based on (1) stealing innovations, (2) hacking into competing companies and stealing business plans, (3) sweatshops and labor abuses, (4) pouring money into useless infrastructure projects, (5) a lack of safety precautions for workers and consumers that would cut into profits, and (6) low-cost, high-pollution industry practices that are good for profit margins but bad for the environment of China and the world as a whole. So much of the economy is based on producing low-cost, low-quality knockoffs instead of actually creating new things.
Given the source of China's wealth, and given how China's wealth is distributed within China, it's not clear to me that all that money is actually benefiting the world, or even the people of China. It just looks like rich industrialists making themselves even wealthier by eating up existing resources, rather than entrepreneurs making new innovations and creating new markets.
I never placed much value on the power to accumulate wealth. I am not impressed by people who make money by gaming the system, or earning interest on existing wealth, or buying out their competitors, or inheriting money, or cutting costs to increase profit margins, or lobbying the government for special treatment, or running parasitic industries like gambling, addictive drugs, or health insurance. I am more impressed by entrepreneurs and inventors, people who actually create something that otherwise would not exist.
@semiticgod, what's the source of your information? The portrait you paint doesn't feel quite right to me. - Chinese theft of IP has been and continues to be a problem, but my understanding was that the problem has been reducing over time, not increasing. The US, along with other countries, has been taking action against China through the WTO for years on this and has made significant progress. - Developing countries generally pay less attention to IP rights (the US had its own period of this). I agree though that China do need to do more to reflect that they are no longer a developing country. - While there are legitimate concerns about the legal system in China legitimizing IP theft (the requirement for local ownership of international firms is a particular problem), I don't think it's reasonable to portray Chinese companies as far out from the norm in their behavior. You only have to follow legal stories to see how prevalent IP theft cases are in Western countries. - China is not a particularly unequal society in terms of wealth distribution. You can see on this table that it's quite similar to the US in fact. China has also made huge (and far more successful efforts than in most of the world) to reduce the problem of poverty in the country. - Pollution is a major problem in China, but the government also recognizes this and has made a lot of efforts to address it. China is for instance by a long way the world leader in solar technology and has plans to phase out all its coal-fired electricity plants over time. - China is obviously not immune to spending money on useless or vanity projects, but their economy as a whole should not be categorized like that and much of their production (including of course that of Huawei) is already high quality, high value. Rather than relying on stealing IP, they have been rapidly building their internal innovation capability in order to move the economy to higher value production - their current R&D spending is close to that of the US and, at over 2% of GDP, in line with expectations for a fully developed country.
@Grond0: Too many sources; it's what I've been hearing for years now. It's possible my information is getting out of date, though--I do know China has been trying to move beyond fossil fuels, but that trend is still in progress.
China's inequality is indeed similar to that of the United States, but I don't think that demonstrates that the situation in either country is any better than it seems. The U.S. and China both have unnatural and inefficient levels of inequality that reflect an essentially unfair economic system that rewards the holders of wealth far more than people who actually work to create wealth.
China is investing heavily in R&D, but they don't get all that much out of it. Despite spending massive amounts on R&D, China is the source of rather few innovations. Despite having more graduate students than any other nations, they don't produce cutting-edge proportionate to their size.
I was not aware that the U.S. had been making progress in punishing IP theft in the WTO. Could you tell me more about that?
Inequality index: where are the world's most unequal countries?
Inequality isn’t all about income. Here’s a guide to different ranking systems – from wealth distribution to the World Happiness Report – and which countries rate best and worst under each
Prosecutors in New York have ordered President Donald Trump’s inauguration committee to hand over documents related to donors and finances, several news organizations reported Monday.
Gee I wonder if the guy who lies about everything used his Presidential inauguration as an excuse to commit crimes. Yeah he probably did. I guess we'll find out.
@Grond0: Too many sources; it's what I've been hearing for years now. It's possible my information is getting out of date, though--I do know China has been trying to move beyond fossil fuels, but that trend is still in progress.
China's inequality is indeed similar to that of the United States, but I don't think that demonstrates that the situation in either country is any better than it seems. The U.S. and China both have unnatural and inefficient levels of inequality that reflect an essentially unfair economic system that rewards the holders of wealth far more than people who actually work to create wealth.
China is investing heavily in R&D, but they don't get all that much out of it. Despite spending massive amounts on R&D, China is the source of rather few innovations. Despite having more graduate students than any other nations, they don't produce cutting-edge proportionate to their size.
I was not aware that the U.S. had been making progress in punishing IP theft in the WTO. Could you tell me more about that?
@semiticgod there have been wranglings with China through the WTO about IP for many years. One major result of that was a 2015 agreement between China and the US that China would put in place a comprehensive system of IP protection. That has been done since then and China's laws are now as good as those anywhere else in the world. There is still though a question about whether those laws are being properly enforced - this article talks about the background to this and suggests that the correct strategy to address those concerns is to develop the WTO challenges. Since the article was published, Trump chose to go the tariff route instead - which is unsurprising since Trump hates multilateral institutions and has been actively working to undermine the WTO dispute resolution process itself.
To give a more balanced picture, you might want to consider this article from the Chinese perspective on IP. As I've noted before I'm not saying there's not a problem, but I do think it's worth reflecting on the considerable improvements made in recent years. That's not just in introducing new laws and starting at least to enforce them, but you can also see that in the fact, for instance, that licensing payments for Chinese use of US IP in the domestic market have increased 4 fold to $30bn per year in the last decade. The number of known IP thefts have also declined over that period, contrary to the popular perception.
I'm also not sure that you're correct that China is not getting much out of R&D. They're relatively new players at the scale they're working at, so many advances won't have worked through the system into production yet - but already they are in fact producing plenty of results. Here's a brief article reflecting on why the idea of China just producing copycat low quality equipment is out of date. There is also a good reason why the US is concerned about Chinese advances in missile and space technology (I would prefer it if those concerns were addressed by negotiation though rather than by starting a new arms race ...).
I don't blame China or any other developing country for IP infringement. The barriers they pose to entering markets are formidable, especially as it somewhat negates the only advantage those countries have: low-cost production.
Furthermore, pushing their own R&D is very difficult, as richer countries offer the most educated and gifted scientists better working conditions and much more attractive pay. Developing countries can't match that, until the economy has improved.
As for pollution - it is a very real problem. But dictating to them that they have to reduce it, while we enjoy our huge headstart in wealth and productivity partially based on us polluting ourselves for decades, is something that is hard to sell to them.
I don't it is reasonable to expected that they will be able to compete on an even ground when respecting our existing IP and protecting the environment. The head start we have will always attract their best talent, unless they catch up first. If we want them to do that, we need to offer them more in return.
To give a more balanced picture, you might want to consider this article from the Chinese perspective on IP. As I've noted before I'm not saying there's not a problem, but I do think it's worth reflecting on the considerable improvements made in recent years. That's not just in introducing new laws and starting at least to enforce them, but you can also see that in the fact, for instance, that licensing payments for Chinese use of US IP in the domestic market have increased 4 fold to $30bn per year in the last decade. The number of known IP thefts have also declined over that period, contrary to the popular perception.
I'm also not sure that you're correct that China is not getting much out of R&D. They're relatively new players at the scale they're working at, so many advances won't have worked through the system into production yet - but already they are in fact producing plenty of results. Here's a brief article reflecting on why the idea of China just producing copycat low quality equipment is out of date. There is also a good reason why the US is concerned about Chinese advances in missile and space technology (I would prefer it if those concerns were addressed by negotiation though rather than by starting a new arms race ...).
The first article does not offer a "balanced perspective" in the least--it's a South China Morning Post article by a former Chinese government official; this is a propaganda piece. The article's argument does not even make sense--the entire argument boils down to one simple, obviously false claim: "Foreigners still invest in China, so it must be worth it, and so it must be fair." The reality is that a business investment doesn't need to be fair, "reasonable," or even legal for it to be cost-effective.
Let's say you get hired at a big company. They offer you a 10% pay raise. Then, after you get hired, you discover that they're using an illegal method to take away 5% of your salary. Clearly, that lost 5% is unfair and unreasonable, and it's most definitely not in your best interest.
But do you quit the job? No, because you're still getting a 5% pay raise even when you factor in the deception.
Let's say you're starting a new business partnership, and you stand to gain $100,000,000 from the investment. Then, after you get started, you discover that people on the ground are stealing from your company--and they're taking ten million dollars out of your profits.
But do you cancel the investment? No, because you're still making 90 million dollars, even when you factor in the theft.
These are all blatant examples of deceptive, unfair business practices that hurt your interests. But they're not severe enough that the investments cease to become profitable. Likewise, Chinese corporations routinely cheat their foreign partners, but the foreign investments don't stop coming in for the sole reason that China is a huge market, and you can make a profit even if you're being cheated.
Is there a profit? Yes. Are you being cheated? Also yes. Does the profit justify or disprove the cheating? No.
The second article you posted does not offer a counterargument at all. If you read through the article, the entire argument is even more irrelevant than the propaganda piece: "Chinese companies are making huge profits, so they must be innovating." The author (not a former Chinese official, to my knowledge, but a former Chinese businessman) fails to provide even a single example of a Chinese innovation; all he does is list examples of Chinese companies that have simply made profits.
I think this is very typical of the PRC mindset: there is no consideration for how people make their money. The only thing that matters is profit, and if you're making a profit, there is nothing to complain about, because profit is the only thing that matters. That's not a straw man, either--both articles explicitly use profits to dismiss criticism of Chinese business practices. Profit is their entire argument.
This brings the number of undocumented workers at MULTIPLE Trump properties up to, by my count after reading the article, 29. Anyone who thinks this man or his family has a scintilla of credibility on this issue is doing Olympic-level mental gymnastics, and the media not using this as the #1 talking point whenever he is asked about immigration is flat-out malpractice.
It's definitely notable that these firings only took place after the existence of these workers started showing up more often in the news.
Are there ANY consequences for the businesses and management who take place in these hiring practices that even remotely mirror the ones the workers are subject to??
To give a more balanced picture, you might want to consider this article from the Chinese perspective on IP. As I've noted before I'm not saying there's not a problem, but I do think it's worth reflecting on the considerable improvements made in recent years. That's not just in introducing new laws and starting at least to enforce them, but you can also see that in the fact, for instance, that licensing payments for Chinese use of US IP in the domestic market have increased 4 fold to $30bn per year in the last decade. The number of known IP thefts have also declined over that period, contrary to the popular perception.
I'm also not sure that you're correct that China is not getting much out of R&D. They're relatively new players at the scale they're working at, so many advances won't have worked through the system into production yet - but already they are in fact producing plenty of results. Here's a brief article reflecting on why the idea of China just producing copycat low quality equipment is out of date. There is also a good reason why the US is concerned about Chinese advances in missile and space technology (I would prefer it if those concerns were addressed by negotiation though rather than by starting a new arms race ...).
The first article does not offer a "balanced perspective" in the least--it's a South China Morning Post article by a former Chinese government official; this is a propaganda piece. The article's argument does not even make sense--the entire argument boils down to one simple, obviously false claim: "Foreigners still invest in China, so it must be worth it, and so it must be fair." The reality is that a business investment doesn't need to be fair, "reasonable," or even legal for it to be cost-effective.
Let's say you get hired at a big company. They offer you a 10% pay raise. Then, after you get hired, you discover that they're using an illegal method to take away 5% of your salary. Clearly, that lost 5% is unfair and unreasonable, and it's most definitely not in your best interest.
But do you quit the job? No, because you're still getting a 5% pay raise even when you factor in the deception.
Let's say you're starting a new business partnership, and you stand to gain $100,000,000 from the investment. Then, after you get started, you discover that people on the ground are stealing from your company--and they're taking ten million dollars out of your profits.
But do you cancel the investment? No, because you're still making 90 million dollars, even when you factor in the theft.
These are all blatant examples of deceptive, unfair business practices that hurt your interests. But they're not severe enough that the investments cease to become profitable. Likewise, Chinese corporations routinely cheat their foreign partners, but the foreign investments don't stop coming in for the sole reason that China is a huge market, and you can make a profit even if you're being cheated.
Is there a profit? Yes. Are you being cheated? Also yes. Does the profit justify or disprove the cheating? No.
The second article you posted does not offer a counterargument at all. If you read through the article, the entire argument is even more irrelevant than the propaganda piece: "Chinese companies are making huge profits, so they must be innovating." The author (not a former Chinese official, to my knowledge, but a former Chinese businessman) fails to provide even a single example of a Chinese innovation; all he does is list examples of Chinese companies that have simply made profits.
I think this is very typical of the PRC mindset: there is no consideration for how people make their money. The only thing that matters is profit, and if you're making a profit, there is nothing to complain about, because profit is the only thing that matters. That's not a straw man, either--both articles explicitly use profits to dismiss criticism of Chinese business practices. Profit is their entire argument.
I think your further response is as unbalanced as your original post. Of course the South China Morning Post has an agenda, but clearly so does much of the information you are basing your argument on - I deliberately posted that article as something coming from a different point of view to provide a balance to the perspective in your post (not to suggest that the article itself was balanced).
You are not fairly characterizing the argument in the SCMP article in your response. The situation is not that people suddenly realize the potential problems with IP after they make an investment, but decide to continue with that anyway. The Chinese requirement for shared domestic ownership and the consequences of that have been well known in business for many years and it is totally inconceivable that anyone would make a business investment of any size in China without considering the issue in advance. To characterize this practice as deceptive is thus just not reasonable. Whether it is unfair is a question of perspective. I think it is appropriate for developing countries to protect and promote their interests when trading, though I do actually agree with you on this one that it is past time that China ended this particular practice.
There are also other points made in the SCMP article, e.g. that there is relatively little Chinese direct investment in overseas technology companies - which would not be expected if their main business strategy were to steal IP. Also US data shows that there has been a reduction in IP theft by China over time, together with considerable increases in licensing payments made for IP.
As for the second article I specifically said that was short, so it's not surprising there's no technical detail in it. However, I was making the point that a lot of Chinese trade is now in high value, high quality products and the article refers to a number of manufacturers of those. One of those companies is Huawei, which has obviously been in the news a lot for other reasons recently. One of the reasons why I did a post on the arrest of their CFO in Canada a while ago was to highlight the possibility that the arrest had more to do with a trade war than any technical irregularities by the company. Huawei is an obvious target for that type of attack simply because it does make very high quality equipment and it had been taking increasing market share away from US competitors. The US has been quietly (and in certain circles not so quietly) been spreading rumors about the potential for the Chinese state to conduct espionage through Huawei products for a while now. I don't know whether those rumors have any basis in reality, but I would not be at all surprised if they were made up simply as a tactic to promote US commercial interests.
Your final point that China is solely motivated by profit is also a distortion. It's no surprise that profit is the major motivation for commercial companies in any country, but if you look at the original post I made on this issue I referred to the considerable amount of work done in China to alleviate poverty. As a country they are clearly taking seriously not just economic well-being for their citizens, but wider issues such as pollution and climate change - unlike the current US government (at least at federal level). I do have substantial concerns about the future in China, but those are related to social and cultural well-being rather than economic. The centralization of political power, the drive for cultural homogeneity and the increasing attempts to assert Chinese dominance internationally are all warning signals I think and concern me more than the Chinese approach to trade.
@Grond0: I would definitely agree that IP theft is one of the lesser problems coming from China today, and I'll grant that China has dramatically decreased poverty, though I'd credit that to a byproduct of economic growth rather than an intentional policy. China doesn't have strong social welfare programs like you'd find in Europe or even the U.S.
I'm pleased, at the very least, that they're investing in renewable energy sources... though it also concerns me that China has been buying up the raw resources for solar panels worldwide, which raises the prospect of China placing restrictions on purchasing those materials in order to punish other countries diplomatically. They tried that a few years ago against Japan by restricting Japan's access to heavy metals it needed for its electronics industry.
I am uneasy about Xi Jinping's removal of term limits and China's stance on Taiwan. We have good reason to believe that China plans on invading Taiwan in an attempt to forcibly "unify" China sometime in the future (as I've complained before, they've been pretty clear about their views on the issue), but given the opacity of the Chinese government, we can't really tell if that's something the Party will actually attempt. It's hard to gauge the motives of a nation when so much of its deliberations are kept secret. It's much easier to get a handle on the motives of a democracy, where policy has to be discussed in public. My old advisor in grad school, Andrew Nathan, has pointed out that a lot of our perceptions of China are, by necessity, based on some level of speculation--we simply don't have a direct way of looking inside the "black box" of Chinese decisionmaking.
My view of the Chinese government used to be much more benign. It's gradually gotten more negative over time, partly because I spent a lot of time studying Chinese propaganda in grad school (listening to people defend and deny human rights abuses can get grating). I don't think the Chinese government has any special malice towards the rest of the world; it doesn't share Putin's desire to actively harm the United States' interests. Mostly it just wants to advance its own wealth and power, and thankfully it views cooperation and trade as the best way to advance those interests. For the most part, China's interests dovetail with ours.
But China is an essentially realist power, and the Party's prime goal, judging from the few internal documents that get leaked now and then (China Digital Times is a good source for these), is to maintain Party power above all else. "Document 9" is one of the best examples of the Party's priorities. Moral issues or values do not figure into Party policy; they view the very concepts of democracy and human rights as a threat to their power.
China is not a military state like North Korea, a megalomaniacal entity like the Soviet Union, or an ethnic supremacist country like Nazi Germany. In that respect, we're lucky. They're not out to devour the world. But at root, we're still working with an authoritarian state controlled primarily by businessmen who have no real ideology, and who are not accountable even to their own people.
My view of the Chinese state is similar to my view of capitalism: on the whole, it's a positive force and we stand to benefit by working with it, but we make a mistake if we place too much trust in its motives, and we overlook its shortcomings if we focus too much on its ability to generate wealth.
yeah not so much... Donald matched to his natural color under the goggles
Gods, he really is that Whiter shade of Pale. Procul Harem knew what they were talking about!
I just finished watching the State of the Union (on mute, because otherwise, I would have fallen asleep), and am now watching the rebuttal from Stacey Abrams. The looks on the faces of people watching were almost amusing. My friend and roommate, watching with me, had me in stitches.
I thought the rebuttal was excellent, and it put me in mind of the bill going through Congress that would ensure that the President, VP and Congress not being paid during shutdowns. I don't think that Trump would care, but I would hope that the others would.
My biggest take away from it was his wall speech, which contradicts a lot of what he said in the recent past but indicated there is more to the plan than just "give me money now."
He stated it is going to be see-through steel slats and it isn't going to span the entire border, just where border agents say they need it the most.
Awesome. Craft that into a concrete (pun intended) plan, figure out the complete budget for it and then bring it to Congress and Senate for a vote.
Do not hold government workers hostage. Do not call a state of Emergency. Be transparent in what you are seeking and let the American people decide if they want it or not.
My biggest take away from it was his wall speech, which contradicts a lot of what he said in the recent past but indicated there is more to the plan than just "give me money now."
He stated it is going to be see-through steel slats and it isn't going to span the entire border, just where border agents say they need it the most.
Awesome. Craft that into a concrete (pun intended) plan, figure out the complete budget for it and then bring it to Congress and Senate for a vote.
Do not hold government workers hostage. Do not call a state of Emergency. Be transparent in what you are seeking and let the American people decide if they want it or not.
That's great and all but the wall isn't in the top 100 of issues facing the country.
Gun violence kills way more people than illegal immigrants.
The gap between rich and poor is enormous and worse since the GOP tax scam.
Climate change is leading to natural emergencies practically every week: fires, floods, polar vortexes, rain, snow, tsunamis.
Internationally the world is more unstable due in part to Trump undermining our allies and his constant flip flopping and unilaterally breaking old deals for petty reasons.
Who gives a shit about a wall that won't magically solve all the problems the notorious liar in the white house has promised it will fix? It's a waste of money and it won't work. For one example the El Chapo trial detailed how he got drugs into America: tunnels and legal ports of entry.
And he said the only thing that can bring the government to a halt was investigtions. A sign he's worried about the many investigations, like the fact that Trump's inaugural committee has been subpoenaed. And Manafort is being sentenced on March 13th.
The biggest takeaway from the State of the Union was CLEARLY the part of the speech where Trump said investigations of him shouldn't continue because......the economy is doing well. Which is a not so subtle way of saying "let me get away with the most rampant corruption since Tammany Hall or the nation will suffer". This isn't the first time he has equated himself and his personal well-being and fortune with that of the country, but it is the hallmark of nearly all autocratic leaders.
This is coming on the heels of the SDNY ramping up their investigation into the inauguration funds. Even though they took in over twice as much money as either Bush or Obama, no one can seem to figure out exactly where that money (over 100 million dollars) went. Sarah Sanders today literally said the inauguration has "nothing to do with the White House".
Here's another intruiging though that troubles me; humans that seem to be quantum leaps above normal. The Einsteins, Curies, Pythagoras, Rembrants, Newtons, Galileos, etc... all seem to be rather random. No sons or daughters of them seem to be anywhere near as genius as they were. If by happenstance, rather than genetics, those types of individuals arise, how many of them are lost to the ages because of circumstance? If, for example, a genius of that magnitude was born in Africa or in a lower-caste of India, what would be their chance of ever being able to amount to anything? Even worse, what if that person were aborted in a Western nation? I'm only throwing this out there as food for thought. My mind works in very odd ways and I was just wondering if anybody else wondered the same things...
See, this is more or less why I'm a Democrat. I don't think the Democratic party is any less terrible than the Republican party; but Democrats give more support the social safety net and consequently promote real equality of opportunity. Put another way, the effect of promoting equality of opportunity is the entire reason to support the social safety net, and to the extent it fails to promote such opportunity, it loses my support.
What if little Elon Musk's father was killed when he was young, and then his mom got sick and they accrued medical debt and had to declare bankruptcy, and he couldn't afford the education that put him in a place to found Paypal? We would have no Tesla, no Hyperloop, etc. Maybe you hate Musk but my point is, there are lots of circumstances in which very smart and very successful people can be cut down before they hit their prime; it seems to me that a society has a vested interest - for the sake of the society overall, setting aside the particular interests of this or that faction within it - a vested interest in curtailing the various circumstances that can stop such success.
So, for example, if there is evidence that the cost of medical care and the chance and result of accruing debt due to medical costs, which by and large have little or nothing to do with one's choices and actions, can have outsize deleterious effects on people's lives and livelihoods, then society has an interest in doing something about it. That could mean expanding affordable healthcare... but it could also mean letting healthcare be expensive, but providing targeted debt relief for those with unusually high medical bills. Or it could mean letting healthcare be out of reach for some people; maybe the genius's mom can get treatment and she dies, but society provides amazing services to make sure orphans grow up to live happy and healthy lives.
Whatever it is, it's going to look like an entitlement. But it's based on the premise that the entitlement is good for society as a whole, so if you love your country I think you have to support some kind of entitlements like this.
I agree with most of what you say (though I am no Musk fan), but I don't understand why you felt the need to put the first half of the 2nd sentence here.
Isn't the entire rest of this post a good argument why the Democratic party is less terrible than the Republican party?
The biggest takeaway from the State of the Union was CLEARLY the part of the speech where Trump said investigations of him shouldn't continue because......the economy is doing well. Which is a not so subtle way of saying "let me get away with the most rampant corruption since Tammany Hall or the nation will suffer". This isn't the first time he has equated himself and his personal well-being and fortune with that of the country, but it is the hallmark of nearly all autocratic leaders.
This is coming on the heels of the SDNY ramping up their investigation into the inauguration funds. Even though they took in over twice as much money as either Bush or Obama, no one can seem to figure out exactly where that money (over 100 million dollars) went. Sarah Sanders today literally said the inauguration has "nothing to do with the White House".
I'm pretty sure Nixon demanded that investigations into him end in his SOTU as well.
Anyone catch Bernie's response? Supposedly the official response was ok but Bernie's was fire.
Personally, I think all religions are silly, but this is just sick. This guy wasn't plotting violence or anything, he was jailed simply because his visions of the big magic daddy are slightly different from some other visions of the big magic daddy.
Comments
Both girls would go over to the man's house to clean it for money. At 13, you can't collude in anything, being unable to give consent (by legal definition). I think this judge should be run out of town on a rail.
And Kim Jong Un called Trump's Administration a "Billionaire's club" with "A policy of racism" who denies the freedom of the Press and health care to his people. How did we get to a point where a dictator could say such things about America and be absolutely correct? And somehow look BETTER than the US?
And, possibly the most crass thing he's ever done... Trump sent around an email to his supporters, promising to show their names live during his State of the Union address if they sent him $5 in the next 3 hours. In effect, he's selling Ad space... during the State of the Union address. It's sickening. Truly sickening. But I can honestly say I'm not really surprised. In the words of an Officer Fitrep. "He has reached rock bottom and has started to drill.
- Chinese theft of IP has been and continues to be a problem, but my understanding was that the problem has been reducing over time, not increasing. The US, along with other countries, has been taking action against China through the WTO for years on this and has made significant progress.
- Developing countries generally pay less attention to IP rights (the US had its own period of this). I agree though that China do need to do more to reflect that they are no longer a developing country.
- While there are legitimate concerns about the legal system in China legitimizing IP theft (the requirement for local ownership of international firms is a particular problem), I don't think it's reasonable to portray Chinese companies as far out from the norm in their behavior. You only have to follow legal stories to see how prevalent IP theft cases are in Western countries.
- China is not a particularly unequal society in terms of wealth distribution. You can see on this table that it's quite similar to the US in fact. China has also made huge (and far more successful efforts than in most of the world) to reduce the problem of poverty in the country.
- Pollution is a major problem in China, but the government also recognizes this and has made a lot of efforts to address it. China is for instance by a long way the world leader in solar technology and has plans to phase out all its coal-fired electricity plants over time.
- China is obviously not immune to spending money on useless or vanity projects, but their economy as a whole should not be categorized like that and much of their production (including of course that of Huawei) is already high quality, high value. Rather than relying on stealing IP, they have been rapidly building their internal innovation capability in order to move the economy to higher value production - their current R&D spending is close to that of the US and, at over 2% of GDP, in line with expectations for a fully developed country.
Inequality isn’t all about income. Here’s a guide to different ranking systems – from wealth distribution to the World Happiness Report – and which countries rate best and worst under each
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/datablog/2017/apr/26/inequality-index-where-are-the-worlds-most-unequal-countries
Gee I wonder if the guy who lies about everything used his Presidential inauguration as an excuse to commit crimes. Yeah he probably did. I guess we'll find out.
To give a more balanced picture, you might want to consider this article from the Chinese perspective on IP. As I've noted before I'm not saying there's not a problem, but I do think it's worth reflecting on the considerable improvements made in recent years. That's not just in introducing new laws and starting at least to enforce them, but you can also see that in the fact, for instance, that licensing payments for Chinese use of US IP in the domestic market have increased 4 fold to $30bn per year in the last decade. The number of known IP thefts have also declined over that period, contrary to the popular perception.
I'm also not sure that you're correct that China is not getting much out of R&D. They're relatively new players at the scale they're working at, so many advances won't have worked through the system into production yet - but already they are in fact producing plenty of results. Here's a brief article reflecting on why the idea of China just producing copycat low quality equipment is out of date. There is also a good reason why the US is concerned about Chinese advances in missile and space technology (I would prefer it if those concerns were addressed by negotiation though rather than by starting a new arms race ...).
I don't it is reasonable to expected that they will be able to compete on an even ground when respecting our existing IP and protecting the environment. The head start we have will always attract their best talent, unless they catch up first. If we want them to do that, we need to offer them more in return.
This brings the number of undocumented workers at MULTIPLE Trump properties up to, by my count after reading the article, 29. Anyone who thinks this man or his family has a scintilla of credibility on this issue is doing Olympic-level mental gymnastics, and the media not using this as the #1 talking point whenever he is asked about immigration is flat-out malpractice.
You are not fairly characterizing the argument in the SCMP article in your response. The situation is not that people suddenly realize the potential problems with IP after they make an investment, but decide to continue with that anyway. The Chinese requirement for shared domestic ownership and the consequences of that have been well known in business for many years and it is totally inconceivable that anyone would make a business investment of any size in China without considering the issue in advance. To characterize this practice as deceptive is thus just not reasonable. Whether it is unfair is a question of perspective. I think it is appropriate for developing countries to protect and promote their interests when trading, though I do actually agree with you on this one that it is past time that China ended this particular practice.
There are also other points made in the SCMP article, e.g. that there is relatively little Chinese direct investment in overseas technology companies - which would not be expected if their main business strategy were to steal IP. Also US data shows that there has been a reduction in IP theft by China over time, together with considerable increases in licensing payments made for IP.
As for the second article I specifically said that was short, so it's not surprising there's no technical detail in it. However, I was making the point that a lot of Chinese trade is now in high value, high quality products and the article refers to a number of manufacturers of those. One of those companies is Huawei, which has obviously been in the news a lot for other reasons recently. One of the reasons why I did a post on the arrest of their CFO in Canada a while ago was to highlight the possibility that the arrest had more to do with a trade war than any technical irregularities by the company. Huawei is an obvious target for that type of attack simply because it does make very high quality equipment and it had been taking increasing market share away from US competitors. The US has been quietly (and in certain circles not so quietly) been spreading rumors about the potential for the Chinese state to conduct espionage through Huawei products for a while now. I don't know whether those rumors have any basis in reality, but I would not be at all surprised if they were made up simply as a tactic to promote US commercial interests.
Your final point that China is solely motivated by profit is also a distortion. It's no surprise that profit is the major motivation for commercial companies in any country, but if you look at the original post I made on this issue I referred to the considerable amount of work done in China to alleviate poverty. As a country they are clearly taking seriously not just economic well-being for their citizens, but wider issues such as pollution and climate change - unlike the current US government (at least at federal level). I do have substantial concerns about the future in China, but those are related to social and cultural well-being rather than economic. The centralization of political power, the drive for cultural homogeneity and the increasing attempts to assert Chinese dominance internationally are all warning signals I think and concern me more than the Chinese approach to trade.
Trump's Skin Is Just That Color from 'Good Genes,’ Says White House
yeah not so much... Donald matched to his natural color under the gogglesI just finished watching the State of the Union (on mute, because otherwise, I would have fallen asleep), and am now watching the rebuttal from Stacey Abrams. The looks on the faces of people watching were almost amusing. My friend and roommate, watching with me, had me in stitches.
I thought the rebuttal was excellent, and it put me in mind of the bill going through Congress that would ensure that the President, VP and Congress not being paid during shutdowns. I don't think that Trump would care, but I would hope that the others would.
My biggest take away from it was his wall speech, which contradicts a lot of what he said in the recent past but indicated there is more to the plan than just "give me money now."
He stated it is going to be see-through steel slats and it isn't going to span the entire border, just where border agents say they need it the most.
Awesome. Craft that into a concrete (pun intended) plan, figure out the complete budget for it and then bring it to Congress and Senate for a vote.
Do not hold government workers hostage. Do not call a state of Emergency. Be transparent in what you are seeking and let the American people decide if they want it or not.
Gun violence kills way more people than illegal immigrants.
The gap between rich and poor is enormous and worse since the GOP tax scam.
Climate change is leading to natural emergencies practically every week: fires, floods, polar vortexes, rain, snow, tsunamis.
Internationally the world is more unstable due in part to Trump undermining our allies and his constant flip flopping and unilaterally breaking old deals for petty reasons.
Who gives a shit about a wall that won't magically solve all the problems the notorious liar in the white house has promised it will fix? It's a waste of money and it won't work. For one example the El Chapo trial detailed how he got drugs into America: tunnels and legal ports of entry.
This is coming on the heels of the SDNY ramping up their investigation into the inauguration funds. Even though they took in over twice as much money as either Bush or Obama, no one can seem to figure out exactly where that money (over 100 million dollars) went. Sarah Sanders today literally said the inauguration has "nothing to do with the White House".
Anyone catch Bernie's response? Supposedly the official response was ok but Bernie's was fire.
Personally, I think all religions are silly, but this is just sick. This guy wasn't plotting violence or anything, he was jailed simply because his visions of the big magic daddy are slightly different from some other visions of the big magic daddy.