This is what you said: ""General Omar Bradley once said, "Amateurs talk strategy; professionals talk logistics." In other words winning a war depends not just on the damage you can inflict, but on your ability to sustain the conflict.
Let's suppose it's true, as you claim, that China will suffer greater damage in a trade war measured in dollars; that's a secondary point. The side that "wins" (note scare quotes) is the one that can maintain its will to fight the longest. You win a trade war by being the first to inflict economic damage that is too painful for the other side to sustain politically.
Suppose the US loses a million jobs as a result of the trade war. Now imagine saying to those million people who are out of work, "It's OK because China lost two million jobs. We won." Now further imagine China gets to decide exactly in which Congressional districts those one million jobs will be lost -- because for practical purposes they do.
It's important not to overestimate an enemy's strengths, but you can't ignore them either. The Chinese leadership isn't beyond public opinion, but it doesn't have to put a key part of its government up for elections every two years. Over here Democratic discussion sites are full of lugubrious hand wringing over the effects of a trade war, but there is a very discernible note of glee over what it is going to do to the Republicans.""
I'll now pull out the relevant citations that lead me to judge this post as I did above.
""You win a trade war by being the first to inflict economic damage that is too painful for the other side to sustain politically."" The argument in this line is that China will be more able to sustain the political damage than will the US.
""Now further imagine China gets to decide exactly in which Congressional districts those one million jobs will be lost -- because for practical purposes they do."" The argument here is that the representative political system in the US is more susceptible to influence by the Chinese than is the Chinese system to US influence.
""The Chinese leadership isn't beyond public opinion, but it doesn't have to put a key part of its government up for elections every two years."" Here the argument appears to be that the autocratic Chinese political system is less susceptible to influence again.
To this I responded as I did above which I need not cite.
To my comment in the previous post you said this: ""I'm not talking about propaganda; wars would be easy if you could propaganda your way to victory."" Here you're suggesting that this isn't about propaganda despite the fact that you were talking about congressional districts which implies elections etc which is absolutely a propaganda argument.
This last post by you makes no sense in context with your previous comments and my replying comment. Please rationally put your comment into context. Because it feels like we're having two different discussions that are not meshing at all.
What I said was: 1. Prior to WW1, the US Federal government relied primarily on tariffs.
2. Free Trade was generally promoted by the US government as a marketing term to describe the US trade deals that came along with First World association. It was a geopolitically motivated bribery to get countries to side against the Second World and join the First World.
3. Actual Free Trade doesn't exist and never did internationally. Cite any trade arrangement you like and I'll show the limitations in it. It doesn't even exist in the EU and the entire selling point of the EU was "free trade" within the EU. But it doesn't even exist within the EU. True, there are generally not tariffs within the EU. But there are quotas that forbid member nations from producing more than X units of all sorts of products. There is inbuilt protectionism for French agriculture and German manufacturing for example. Thus as there is protectionism there is not free trade. And if it doesn't even exist within a trade federation that was specifically created with the stated goal of free trade... where else are you going to presume it actually exists?
This is a hopeless argument. Objectively examine the concept and its empirical real world application. Tell me why I'm wrong.
The argument here seems to be that because the US is a democracy it is more vulnerable to economic propaganda where as China has controlled media and controlled economic elements that allows it to control the public response or whether the people even matter.
Ultimately, this is not an argument against trade war but rather an argument against representative democracy itself and a suggestion that autocracies are better at weathering conflicts. This is objectively invalidated by numerous historical examples of representative democracies winning over various autocracies over time.
Why did the US win out over the Soviet Union if we follow your logic? Play some devil's advocate with your position please. Just ask why you're wrong... take the opposing position and really rigorously go through it. I think you'll be able to rip your own argument apart pretty easily if you try.
As to trade restrictions hurting the poor, not always since it can have economic benefits. Though as I said, it is totally possible for it to be net negative.
And just to be clear here so I can short circuit any attempt to make a purist free trade argument, the US had a tariff based tax policy prior to WW1. And that period of US economic activity was the most productive and the statistically benefited the poorest in US society more than at any other period of US economic development. Everything from the per-colonial period to WW1 operated on a heavy tariff system.
Process that before you say tariffs MUST be damaging to the poor. Because it empirically was a very healthy and prosperous economy.
As to free trade being optimal, perhaps if it exists but it doesn't. There is no example of ACTUAL free trade in the international context and there never has been. It was a marketing term used by the US during the Cold War as I made clear. Every example you could cite actually has limits put upon it as to the type of goods that can be exchanged and often tariffs still are imposed on goods that are cited as operating under "free trade".
As to "fair trade" this is also a marketing term and has no clearly defined meaning and thus can just be rejected as a concept unless explicitly defined.
The US has a trade imbalance with China... that means the US imports more from China than China does from the US. Therefore, quid pro quo... the US can deny China more revenue than China can deny the US.
Sure, the US can hurt ITSELF by denying ITSELF Chinese goods which the US ITSELF makes more expensive in the US through tariffs. However, with really no exceptions there are comparable trade partners that can offer the same good at either the same or very similar price point.
What is more, there really isn't anything China produces that has to come from China. They don't own any IP that anyone cares about. The only reason anyone does anything in China is mostly due to low labor costs which are less relevant now for two reasons. First, Chinese labor costs have been going up such that labor costs are often cheaper somewhere else if that is important. And second, the rise of automation is rendering the relevance of labor costs of that type... less relevant.
Will tariffs help US producers? Maybe. They can and they sometimes don't. It is complicated. There are countries with very high tariffs that have absolutely flat-lined manufacturing... which results in things being more expensive for consumers without any pay off in terms of domestic production. Then there are places where tariffs are hugely helpful to domestic production.
A big part of the controversy so far as I can see if that there is a myth about "free trade"... that it is "the american way" and that "it actually exists anywhere". Historically, the US Federal Government funded itself principally from tariffs. This didn't really stop until the Cold War when very generous trade deals were offered as an inducement for fence sitting nations to join the "first world". For reference, first world during the Cold War referred to any nation allied with the US. Second world referred to any nation allied with the Soviet Union. Third world referred to any nation not allied with either the US or Soviet Union. Regardless, "free trade" was a marketing term the US used to brand its trade deals. The US was branding everything it did as "free" something. Freedom fighters, Free World, Free Trade etc. US Free Trade doctrine was only created to put pressure on the Soviets and has really no purpose in the 21st century unless again applied to serve some kind of geopolitical agenda. Instead, the US is applying the concept mindlessly with no particular purpose. Its cited as "the american way" like its something essential to American values when any fool that looks at history can see when it came around and why. Second, ACTUAL free trade only exists domestically within certain nations and doesn't really exist in any international context and never did. Trade is conditional. The US doesn't have free trade with Mexico and Canada through NAFTA much less with anyone else. And neither does any other country.
China has higher tariffs on US goods into China than the US does on Chinese goods into the US... and that was before Trump or any of this current bullshit.
Restrictions are happening everywhere all the time for various reasons. Some of the restrictions are a matter of law and policy and some are a subtle consequence of process or relationship. The net effect either way is that goods don't flow freely. They're restricted and regulated and taxed and have quotas applied etc.
US goods when they go nearly anywhere are limited in some way. US goods to Japan for example sometimes ROT on the pier because the Japanese want to protect their domestic market by limiting US trade. Countries come up with all sorts of pretexts to do it. Health and safety is a popular one. Differing regulatory standards which are approved at time X and then suddenly are questioned at X+1 at the worst possible time fucking over who ever chanced the market.
As regards China specifically, their fast and loose treatment of trade agreements, business agreements, licensing, intellectual property... etc is well known at this point. We're due a big shift in trade relationships with
email and websites etc operate on an open platform... suggesting it won't go beyond that seems a narrow perspective...
The free hosting of video is overrated for anyone besides the people uploading the occasional cat video. If you look at hosting costs relative to ad revenue, you'll find that traffic easily pays for hosting costs indifferent to traffic because the more traffic you get the more revenue you get... the relationship isn't even linear.
What youtube is really offering is convenience... not free hosting.
Free is hard to compete with... convenience is merely a matter of refinement.
1. I agree you don't have to honor patents to get the tech that is patented.
2. I agree that not honoring patents does offer short term benefits. I think there are long term problems with not honoring patents that suppress investment in new technology because you won't own things you invested to create. Instead, you invest and your competitors profit because they get the fruits of your investment without any of the work to develop it.
3. As to it not being china's problem, theft isn't a problem if you don't punish the thieves. So I agree with you again here unless theft is punished in which case it will be a problem for China.
4. It is an assumed quality of international trade that you can forbid entry into your ports of various goods if they violate trade rules. Given that the countries that produce patents tend to be the best markets to sell goods, there is enormous leverage that patent creating countries have on non-patent producing countries. If that is used, China will have to comply with patent law or its entire economy will shut down.
The problem with youtube, google, facebook, twitter, reddit... we took this open platform of the internet where anyone could do anything and we gave control over our behavior to a few big players because their products were slick and had a lot of cash invested in them. We centralized... and in centralizing we gave control over this free wheeling space of the internet to a handful of companies.
And now we're seeing the problem with that. The same problem we had before with the handful of media companies that provided our TV, Newspapers, Radio, etc...The freedom is gone if you centralize.
We have to decentralize. Put the power in so many hands that no one would even dream they could stop anything.
I didn't reply anonymously... That was not me. This is the problem with the stupid little game you're playing.
To hide your own bad behavior, you undermine yourself, render your argument laughable, and clearly are simply confusing yourself. Make things easier on yourself, have a little integrity, and maybe we can see eye to eye once you've revealed who you are. Then I can respond to your rabid internet panty sniffing by quickly going through your history to show you too have opinions... and as on that bomb shell you'll have no grounds to throw stones.
That matter is obviously controversial within the US. Some desire one outcome whilst others desire another. We'll see how it works out. Push as you can see is coming to shove.
Most of the research is happening at the big universities which china can't buy. I fair number of them are not even private entities.
China isn't buying a UC school, MIT, or any of the Ivy Leagues...
The underlying problem with china is integrity. They don't honor patents. Not just US patents but any patents. They don't honor their own patents. Until they start honoring patents in practice and fact I don't think Chinese technological supremacy is a serious concern.
Your pathetic hate boner for me is made all the more poignant by your terror at being identified as you cower behind your AC tag.
I'm quite certain you post under a known name on this forum. But when it comes to e-stalking and trolling you hide behind your AC tag.
What do you believe? hmm?
See, what you're doing is using the fact that I use a trackable name to establish a record on me. But what of you?
See, I could do the same thing, post under the AC tag as well... and then who could you pathetically stalk?
Your entire methodology is hypocritical. Please either forgo bringing up someone's post history or post in a manner that you have a post history yourself.
You won't do this as we both know... Because if people could track your bullshit it would render any criticism you could level at the likes of me laughable.
I've interacted with you enough to know you're dishonest, have poor reading comprehension, and are stupid. If we had some post history on you, I'd have more ammunition than I'd ever need to scare cockroaches like you back under the fridge whenever you dared scuttle out.
But as I said, you won't post under a non-AC tag... So the best I can do is point out your evident degeneracy and hypocrisy as it comes. Pity.
I'm not talking about doing anything. I'm talking about bad investments not paying out.
A lot of small universities are going broke. The big ones are doing very well but the marginal ones are dying left right and center. They're bad investments.
So I'm not cheating the chinese. I'm not doing anything. Bad investments are bad.
As I said, the Japanese did the same thing in the 1980s. They went crazy with their money and made a lot of really bad investments. When their money ran out, Japan went into a decades long national recession.
We didn't do that. They did it to themselves.
All I would do is simply not sell them things that we're not comfortable being owned by a foreign power. This isn't a special quality, no nation is going to do that.
So beyond not selling the crown jewels... I'll just let them do what they want... which seems to be pissing their money away on lost causes.
The good news is that the institutions being bought are small ones generally that don't matter... colleges that can burn out and vanish without even being noticed.
Ideal end game with this sort of thing is that the Chinese get what the Japanese got when they pulled the same move in the 1980s... Ash. Japanese bought a lot of things... paid top dollar for damaged assets... and when time told on the wisdom of the investments... they lost their shirts.
I bare no hostility to the Chinese, but just like they don't want their country controlled by the US... I'm not interested in getting mine entangled with China.
My standard of almost impossible is rather extreme. When I say "almost impossible"... I tend to mean some james bond shit would have to happen.
And really nothing is going to stop that. The guy will tell everyone his name, kill/have sex with all your guards, and break into whatever using rocket packs and lasers...
As I said before, I'm a big fan of security through literally disabling or breaking features in programs that aren't used or can't be secured.
James Bond will get physical access to whatever we've stored our top secret whatever on... so we're screwed there. Can't keep things secure if you lose physical security... not without some really hilarious encryption. Like... 1:1 encryption... That stuff is funny.
A lot of this is the result of not turning off features that people don't use.
Every program and protocol is stuffed with bells and whistles that no one uses.
Unused features are frequently not disabled which means they're just sitting there in some default state waiting for someone to come in and blow gently in its ear to pervert that feature to take control over whatever.
We need to get better about disabling features we don't use.
First step on that road is getting a really good list of all the features that even exist for whatever we're setting up or managing.
Second step is actually understanding which of those we actually use...
Third step is turning all that shit off by whatever means is most reasonable.
That all by itself is going to preclude most of the problems we've been seeing lately.
The NEXT big problem is that most features are themselves too complicated and too comprehensive in their robust feature set. If you want to do X, that typically only means X in a specific context. But the feature allows that X to happen in a large number of contexts which you probably don't want to happen. Typically, you can't even turn off these other contexts. You have to make them hard to do by eliminating things that allow those other contexts. But what if we made the features more anal about how they worked. So you had to explicitly enable certain contexts and things you didn't... didn't work?
Just spit balling here.
What I'm getting at is that functionality and capability are literally the vectors used to hack our systems. If the system literally cannot do something no matter what level of access you have to it... then the hacker can't make it do that bad thing.
We need to be careful about what we let our systems do. We have to start seeing INABILITY as a feature in and of itself.
I refer to this as breaking the legs of certain programs and appliances. I literally go in and damage the programs so that they cannot do the bad thing with any level of access unless someone first goes in and fixes the program.
This isn't novel. I know a lot of people do this sort of thing. But it gets to a security philosophy that I think is underrepresented.
I want to make things impossible. Literally impossible. A bird with no wings cannot fly. An appliance that has hardware writelocked configurations cannot have its configurations changed.
I've been dealing on and off with a long list of technologies that are very prone to being compromised and this is the security philosophy that has worked. Our systems are not penetrated. We set things up so that everything only works "just so"... and if anything separates from the rules... it stops working. Not because permissions were not granted in most cases... even though they also were not... but because the programs and appliances can't even operate outside of that context. Like trying to connect to a bluetooth device with a ham radio... the idea is to make things either impossible or so absurdly difficult that it won't happen.
You were advocating censorship and justifying silencing people on that logic.
Can I presume you are not advocating silencing people and that you advocate a free marketplace of ideas where the success of failure of a voice will be down to whether anyone is convinced by it rather than because someone used force to silence words?
As to communists, they met your standard of being divergent from the political norm. I can also show many examples of violence from communist organizations that can rival anything you would cite from the Nazis.
If you don't accept the communist ban then I have to conclude there is no integrity in the argument.
Look, you want to ban fringe and sometimes violent political organizations? Okay. Communists would have to be on that list though if you're being honest. If you're not putting them there... then there is a lack of consistency.
It does again seem like you're just trying to ban rival political factions. This is what elections are for... argue against positions and win elections. If you feel your argument is so weak that you have to use violence to silence words... then maybe "you" are the problem. After all, you are literally calling for people's freedom of speech and legal political agency to be taken from them without due process.
You are offering people no day in court. This seems impossible to define in any other sense than tyranny. And to make it worse, you said your reasoning was that they were divergent from the norm. I gave you another divergent political group... one that is objectively as violent as the nazis... and you rejected that idea.
This is unacceptable. You need to have consistency to maintain integrity.
As to it not being so bad that things change... cartoon network etc... well then you again are abandoning this argument of "they're bad because they're different from the norm". If countering the norm isn't a problem then I don't want to hear "they're different from the norm" being an argument to silence them. That's literally illogical.
As to having no concept of censorship... then stop advocating censorship.
The system grants KEYS to trains and ONLY the train with the key can physically enter the track. So if the train sensor doesn't work... that doesn't really matter. And if the track sensors don't work that also doesn't matter.
As to "alt right"... ban the communists as well and I'm on board.
But if you just go after the internet nazis and leave the internet communists... then no deal.
Frankly, a serious worry here is that this sort of behavior can be used to ban any contrary opinions through goal post moving. We see this happening all the time. Overtone window type stuff. Things that were acceptable 50 years ago are not now and things that weren't then are now. So, where do we draw the line here. If the idea is "no unpopular positions" or "no non-mainstream positions"... what were your ideas in many places 50 years ago? I'm sure an argument could be made using your logic to ban your ideas from ever being pushed in the first place.
Its ultimately an argument for stasis... and I don't trust the integrity of the argument because I'm very sure it will not be evenly applied.
As to my segregation suggestion, we have child and porn filters and other stuff. That is what I'm suggesting. Helping people block out all the wrong think so they don't have to deal with it.
IF you don't want to be bothered by contrary opinions, then I think you should have the right to filter who interacts with you. However, that does not extend to silencing other people. All you have a right to do is selectively deaden your own ears. if this is done properly then you should be able to avoid ever interacting with any opinion or subculture you dislike.
There is nothing wrong with that in principle. I personally dislike a great many subcultures and do my best to not interact with them... Furries for example... Zero interest in interacting with that group.
But I wouldn't suggest furries shouldn't be able to talk to each other or anyone that wants to talk to them.
"I" believe in freedom of speech. Not merely morally, ethically, and legally... I think you literally won't stop it. The tech is against you here. You can't control speech on the internet. All you'll do is piss people off and look like a dick. If the Chinese can't do it, then neither will Zuckerberg.
As to multiple branches, if you want to claim separation of powers then how are you going to separate the powers?
Classically we have Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary.
So... to have separation of powers you need to have those three branches cooperate to do something.
So, the Legislative would set the policy, the Executive would enact it, and then WHEN they enact, anyone they enacted it against would get due process in a court of law.
Sound reasonable for your internet censorship concept? It won't work.
Look, do what you want... this entire idea is at best pissing into the wind.
I respect your right to speak and I don't need to be protected from you speech. I legitimately and authentically value freedom of speech. Those calling for censorship either were never advocates or are frauds.
Slashdot Mirror
This is what you said:
""General Omar Bradley once said, "Amateurs talk strategy; professionals talk logistics." In other words winning a war depends not just on the damage you can inflict, but on your ability to sustain the conflict.
Let's suppose it's true, as you claim, that China will suffer greater damage in a trade war measured in dollars; that's a secondary point. The side that "wins" (note scare quotes) is the one that can maintain its will to fight the longest. You win a trade war by being the first to inflict economic damage that is too painful for the other side to sustain politically.
Suppose the US loses a million jobs as a result of the trade war. Now imagine saying to those million people who are out of work, "It's OK because China lost two million jobs. We won." Now further imagine China gets to decide exactly in which Congressional districts those one million jobs will be lost -- because for practical purposes they do.
It's important not to overestimate an enemy's strengths, but you can't ignore them either. The Chinese leadership isn't beyond public opinion, but it doesn't have to put a key part of its government up for elections every two years. Over here Democratic discussion sites are full of lugubrious hand wringing over the effects of a trade war, but there is a very discernible note of glee over what it is going to do to the Republicans.""
I'll now pull out the relevant citations that lead me to judge this post as I did above.
""You win a trade war by being the first to inflict economic damage that is too painful for the other side to sustain politically.""
The argument in this line is that China will be more able to sustain the political damage than will the US.
""Now further imagine China gets to decide exactly in which Congressional districts those one million jobs will be lost -- because for practical purposes they do.""
The argument here is that the representative political system in the US is more susceptible to influence by the Chinese than is the Chinese system to US influence.
""The Chinese leadership isn't beyond public opinion, but it doesn't have to put a key part of its government up for elections every two years.""
Here the argument appears to be that the autocratic Chinese political system is less susceptible to influence again.
To this I responded as I did above which I need not cite.
To my comment in the previous post you said this:
""I'm not talking about propaganda; wars would be easy if you could propaganda your way to victory.""
Here you're suggesting that this isn't about propaganda despite the fact that you were talking about congressional districts which implies elections etc which is absolutely a propaganda argument.
This last post by you makes no sense in context with your previous comments and my replying comment. Please rationally put your comment into context. Because it feels like we're having two different discussions that are not meshing at all.
Nice try at a strawman.
What I said was:
1. Prior to WW1, the US Federal government relied primarily on tariffs.
2. Free Trade was generally promoted by the US government as a marketing term to describe the US trade deals that came along with First World association. It was a geopolitically motivated bribery to get countries to side against the Second World and join the First World.
3. Actual Free Trade doesn't exist and never did internationally. Cite any trade arrangement you like and I'll show the limitations in it. It doesn't even exist in the EU and the entire selling point of the EU was "free trade" within the EU. But it doesn't even exist within the EU. True, there are generally not tariffs within the EU. But there are quotas that forbid member nations from producing more than X units of all sorts of products. There is inbuilt protectionism for French agriculture and German manufacturing for example. Thus as there is protectionism there is not free trade. And if it doesn't even exist within a trade federation that was specifically created with the stated goal of free trade... where else are you going to presume it actually exists?
This is a hopeless argument. Objectively examine the concept and its empirical real world application. Tell me why I'm wrong.
The argument here seems to be that because the US is a democracy it is more vulnerable to economic propaganda where as China has controlled media and controlled economic elements that allows it to control the public response or whether the people even matter.
Ultimately, this is not an argument against trade war but rather an argument against representative democracy itself and a suggestion that autocracies are better at weathering conflicts. This is objectively invalidated by numerous historical examples of representative democracies winning over various autocracies over time.
Why did the US win out over the Soviet Union if we follow your logic? Play some devil's advocate with your position please. Just ask why you're wrong... take the opposing position and really rigorously go through it. I think you'll be able to rip your own argument apart pretty easily if you try.
As to trade restrictions hurting the poor, not always since it can have economic benefits. Though as I said, it is totally possible for it to be net negative.
And just to be clear here so I can short circuit any attempt to make a purist free trade argument, the US had a tariff based tax policy prior to WW1. And that period of US economic activity was the most productive and the statistically benefited the poorest in US society more than at any other period of US economic development. Everything from the per-colonial period to WW1 operated on a heavy tariff system.
Process that before you say tariffs MUST be damaging to the poor. Because it empirically was a very healthy and prosperous economy.
As to free trade being optimal, perhaps if it exists but it doesn't. There is no example of ACTUAL free trade in the international context and there never has been. It was a marketing term used by the US during the Cold War as I made clear. Every example you could cite actually has limits put upon it as to the type of goods that can be exchanged and often tariffs still are imposed on goods that are cited as operating under "free trade".
As to "fair trade" this is also a marketing term and has no clearly defined meaning and thus can just be rejected as a concept unless explicitly defined.
The US has a trade imbalance with China... that means the US imports more from China than China does from the US. Therefore, quid pro quo... the US can deny China more revenue than China can deny the US.
Sure, the US can hurt ITSELF by denying ITSELF Chinese goods which the US ITSELF makes more expensive in the US through tariffs. However, with really no exceptions there are comparable trade partners that can offer the same good at either the same or very similar price point.
What is more, there really isn't anything China produces that has to come from China. They don't own any IP that anyone cares about. The only reason anyone does anything in China is mostly due to low labor costs which are less relevant now for two reasons. First, Chinese labor costs have been going up such that labor costs are often cheaper somewhere else if that is important. And second, the rise of automation is rendering the relevance of labor costs of that type... less relevant.
Will tariffs help US producers? Maybe. They can and they sometimes don't. It is complicated. There are countries with very high tariffs that have absolutely flat-lined manufacturing... which results in things being more expensive for consumers without any pay off in terms of domestic production. Then there are places where tariffs are hugely helpful to domestic production.
A big part of the controversy so far as I can see if that there is a myth about "free trade"... that it is "the american way" and that "it actually exists anywhere". Historically, the US Federal Government funded itself principally from tariffs. This didn't really stop until the Cold War when very generous trade deals were offered as an inducement for fence sitting nations to join the "first world". For reference, first world during the Cold War referred to any nation allied with the US. Second world referred to any nation allied with the Soviet Union. Third world referred to any nation not allied with either the US or Soviet Union. Regardless, "free trade" was a marketing term the US used to brand its trade deals. The US was branding everything it did as "free" something. Freedom fighters, Free World, Free Trade etc. US Free Trade doctrine was only created to put pressure on the Soviets and has really no purpose in the 21st century unless again applied to serve some kind of geopolitical agenda. Instead, the US is applying the concept mindlessly with no particular purpose. Its cited as "the american way" like its something essential to American values when any fool that looks at history can see when it came around and why. Second, ACTUAL free trade only exists domestically within certain nations and doesn't really exist in any international context and never did. Trade is conditional. The US doesn't have free trade with Mexico and Canada through NAFTA much less with anyone else. And neither does any other country.
China has higher tariffs on US goods into China than the US does on Chinese goods into the US... and that was before Trump or any of this current bullshit.
Restrictions are happening everywhere all the time for various reasons. Some of the restrictions are a matter of law and policy and some are a subtle consequence of process or relationship. The net effect either way is that goods don't flow freely. They're restricted and regulated and taxed and have quotas applied etc.
US goods when they go nearly anywhere are limited in some way. US goods to Japan for example sometimes ROT on the pier because the Japanese want to protect their domestic market by limiting US trade. Countries come up with all sorts of pretexts to do it. Health and safety is a popular one. Differing regulatory standards which are approved at time X and then suddenly are questioned at X+1 at the worst possible time fucking over who ever chanced the market.
As regards China specifically, their fast and loose treatment of trade agreements, business agreements, licensing, intellectual property... etc is well known at this point. We're due a big shift in trade relationships with
just some approximation.
email and websites etc operate on an open platform... suggesting it won't go beyond that seems a narrow perspective...
The free hosting of video is overrated for anyone besides the people uploading the occasional cat video. If you look at hosting costs relative to ad revenue, you'll find that traffic easily pays for hosting costs indifferent to traffic because the more traffic you get the more revenue you get... the relationship isn't even linear.
What youtube is really offering is convenience... not free hosting.
Free is hard to compete with... convenience is merely a matter of refinement.
Sure, comrade... but what does that have to do with my argument about patents?
1. I agree you don't have to honor patents to get the tech that is patented.
2. I agree that not honoring patents does offer short term benefits. I think there are long term problems with not honoring patents that suppress investment in new technology because you won't own things you invested to create. Instead, you invest and your competitors profit because they get the fruits of your investment without any of the work to develop it.
3. As to it not being china's problem, theft isn't a problem if you don't punish the thieves. So I agree with you again here unless theft is punished in which case it will be a problem for China.
4. It is an assumed quality of international trade that you can forbid entry into your ports of various goods if they violate trade rules. Given that the countries that produce patents tend to be the best markets to sell goods, there is enormous leverage that patent creating countries have on non-patent producing countries. If that is used, China will have to comply with patent law or its entire economy will shut down.
5. As to weapons, see 1~4
The problem with youtube, google, facebook, twitter, reddit... we took this open platform of the internet where anyone could do anything and we gave control over our behavior to a few big players because their products were slick and had a lot of cash invested in them. We centralized... and in centralizing we gave control over this free wheeling space of the internet to a handful of companies.
And now we're seeing the problem with that. The same problem we had before with the handful of media companies that provided our TV, Newspapers, Radio, etc...The freedom is gone if you centralize.
We have to decentralize. Put the power in so many hands that no one would even dream they could stop anything.
I didn't reply anonymously... That was not me. This is the problem with the stupid little game you're playing.
To hide your own bad behavior, you undermine yourself, render your argument laughable, and clearly are simply confusing yourself. Make things easier on yourself, have a little integrity, and maybe we can see eye to eye once you've revealed who you are. Then I can respond to your rabid internet panty sniffing by quickly going through your history to show you too have opinions... and as on that bomb shell you'll have no grounds to throw stones.
That matter is obviously controversial within the US. Some desire one outcome whilst others desire another. We'll see how it works out. Push as you can see is coming to shove.
Most of the research is happening at the big universities which china can't buy. I fair number of them are not even private entities.
China isn't buying a UC school, MIT, or any of the Ivy Leagues...
The underlying problem with china is integrity. They don't honor patents. Not just US patents but any patents. They don't honor their own patents. Until they start honoring patents in practice and fact I don't think Chinese technological supremacy is a serious concern.
Your pathetic hate boner for me is made all the more poignant by your terror at being identified as you cower behind your AC tag.
I'm quite certain you post under a known name on this forum. But when it comes to e-stalking and trolling you hide behind your AC tag.
What do you believe? hmm?
See, what you're doing is using the fact that I use a trackable name to establish a record on me. But what of you?
See, I could do the same thing, post under the AC tag as well... and then who could you pathetically stalk?
Your entire methodology is hypocritical. Please either forgo bringing up someone's post history or post in a manner that you have a post history yourself.
You won't do this as we both know... Because if people could track your bullshit it would render any criticism you could level at the likes of me laughable.
I've interacted with you enough to know you're dishonest, have poor reading comprehension, and are stupid. If we had some post history on you, I'd have more ammunition than I'd ever need to scare cockroaches like you back under the fridge whenever you dared scuttle out.
But as I said, you won't post under a non-AC tag... So the best I can do is point out your evident degeneracy and hypocrisy as it comes. Pity.
I'm not talking about doing anything. I'm talking about bad investments not paying out.
A lot of small universities are going broke. The big ones are doing very well but the marginal ones are dying left right and center. They're bad investments.
So I'm not cheating the chinese. I'm not doing anything. Bad investments are bad.
As I said, the Japanese did the same thing in the 1980s. They went crazy with their money and made a lot of really bad investments. When their money ran out, Japan went into a decades long national recession.
We didn't do that. They did it to themselves.
All I would do is simply not sell them things that we're not comfortable being owned by a foreign power. This isn't a special quality, no nation is going to do that.
So beyond not selling the crown jewels... I'll just let them do what they want... which seems to be pissing their money away on lost causes.
The good news is that the institutions being bought are small ones generally that don't matter... colleges that can burn out and vanish without even being noticed.
Ideal end game with this sort of thing is that the Chinese get what the Japanese got when they pulled the same move in the 1980s... Ash. Japanese bought a lot of things... paid top dollar for damaged assets... and when time told on the wisdom of the investments... they lost their shirts.
I bare no hostility to the Chinese, but just like they don't want their country controlled by the US... I'm not interested in getting mine entangled with China.
Good fences make good neighbors etc.
Think of it like welding doors shut that you don't intend to ever open again.
Lock picks won't get through that. The lock in question might even just be slagged.
My standard of almost impossible is rather extreme. When I say "almost impossible"... I tend to mean some james bond shit would have to happen.
And really nothing is going to stop that. The guy will tell everyone his name, kill/have sex with all your guards, and break into whatever using rocket packs and lasers...
As I said before, I'm a big fan of security through literally disabling or breaking features in programs that aren't used or can't be secured.
James Bond will get physical access to whatever we've stored our top secret whatever on... so we're screwed there. Can't keep things secure if you lose physical security... not without some really hilarious encryption. Like... 1:1 encryption... That stuff is funny.
if you have a link to him talking about that, it would be appreciated...
A lot of this is the result of not turning off features that people don't use.
Every program and protocol is stuffed with bells and whistles that no one uses.
Unused features are frequently not disabled which means they're just sitting there in some default state waiting for someone to come in and blow gently in its ear to pervert that feature to take control over whatever.
We need to get better about disabling features we don't use.
First step on that road is getting a really good list of all the features that even exist for whatever we're setting up or managing.
Second step is actually understanding which of those we actually use...
Third step is turning all that shit off by whatever means is most reasonable.
That all by itself is going to preclude most of the problems we've been seeing lately.
The NEXT big problem is that most features are themselves too complicated and too comprehensive in their robust feature set. If you want to do X, that typically only means X in a specific context. But the feature allows that X to happen in a large number of contexts which you probably don't want to happen. Typically, you can't even turn off these other contexts. You have to make them hard to do by eliminating things that allow those other contexts. But what if we made the features more anal about how they worked. So you had to explicitly enable certain contexts and things you didn't... didn't work?
Just spit balling here.
What I'm getting at is that functionality and capability are literally the vectors used to hack our systems. If the system literally cannot do something no matter what level of access you have to it... then the hacker can't make it do that bad thing.
We need to be careful about what we let our systems do. We have to start seeing INABILITY as a feature in and of itself.
I refer to this as breaking the legs of certain programs and appliances. I literally go in and damage the programs so that they cannot do the bad thing with any level of access unless someone first goes in and fixes the program.
This isn't novel. I know a lot of people do this sort of thing. But it gets to a security philosophy that I think is underrepresented.
I want to make things impossible. Literally impossible. A bird with no wings cannot fly. An appliance that has hardware writelocked configurations cannot have its configurations changed.
I've been dealing on and off with a long list of technologies that are very prone to being compromised and this is the security philosophy that has worked. Our systems are not penetrated. We set things up so that everything only works "just so"... and if anything separates from the rules... it stops working. Not because permissions were not granted in most cases... even though they also were not... but because the programs and appliances can't even operate outside of that context. Like trying to connect to a bluetooth device with a ham radio... the idea is to make things either impossible or so absurdly difficult that it won't happen.
You were advocating censorship and justifying silencing people on that logic.
Can I presume you are not advocating silencing people and that you advocate a free marketplace of ideas where the success of failure of a voice will be down to whether anyone is convinced by it rather than because someone used force to silence words?
As to communists, they met your standard of being divergent from the political norm. I can also show many examples of violence from communist organizations that can rival anything you would cite from the Nazis.
If you don't accept the communist ban then I have to conclude there is no integrity in the argument.
Look, you want to ban fringe and sometimes violent political organizations? Okay. Communists would have to be on that list though if you're being honest. If you're not putting them there... then there is a lack of consistency.
It does again seem like you're just trying to ban rival political factions. This is what elections are for... argue against positions and win elections. If you feel your argument is so weak that you have to use violence to silence words... then maybe "you" are the problem. After all, you are literally calling for people's freedom of speech and legal political agency to be taken from them without due process.
You are offering people no day in court. This seems impossible to define in any other sense than tyranny. And to make it worse, you said your reasoning was that they were divergent from the norm. I gave you another divergent political group... one that is objectively as violent as the nazis... and you rejected that idea.
This is unacceptable. You need to have consistency to maintain integrity.
As to it not being so bad that things change... cartoon network etc... well then you again are abandoning this argument of "they're bad because they're different from the norm". If countering the norm isn't a problem then I don't want to hear "they're different from the norm" being an argument to silence them. That's literally illogical.
As to having no concept of censorship... then stop advocating censorship.
I did suspect this was an element of the problem. Every government institution has something of a "deep state" at this point.
That's not what I'm talking about.
The system grants KEYS to trains and ONLY the train with the key can physically enter the track. So if the train sensor doesn't work... that doesn't really matter. And if the track sensors don't work that also doesn't matter.
Because only ONE train will have the key at once.
As to "alt right"... ban the communists as well and I'm on board.
But if you just go after the internet nazis and leave the internet communists... then no deal.
Frankly, a serious worry here is that this sort of behavior can be used to ban any contrary opinions through goal post moving. We see this happening all the time. Overtone window type stuff. Things that were acceptable 50 years ago are not now and things that weren't then are now. So, where do we draw the line here. If the idea is "no unpopular positions" or "no non-mainstream positions"... what were your ideas in many places 50 years ago? I'm sure an argument could be made using your logic to ban your ideas from ever being pushed in the first place.
Its ultimately an argument for stasis... and I don't trust the integrity of the argument because I'm very sure it will not be evenly applied.
As to my segregation suggestion, we have child and porn filters and other stuff. That is what I'm suggesting. Helping people block out all the wrong think so they don't have to deal with it.
IF you don't want to be bothered by contrary opinions, then I think you should have the right to filter who interacts with you. However, that does not extend to silencing other people. All you have a right to do is selectively deaden your own ears. if this is done properly then you should be able to avoid ever interacting with any opinion or subculture you dislike.
There is nothing wrong with that in principle. I personally dislike a great many subcultures and do my best to not interact with them... Furries for example... Zero interest in interacting with that group.
But I wouldn't suggest furries shouldn't be able to talk to each other or anyone that wants to talk to them.
"I" believe in freedom of speech. Not merely morally, ethically, and legally... I think you literally won't stop it. The tech is against you here. You can't control speech on the internet. All you'll do is piss people off and look like a dick. If the Chinese can't do it, then neither will Zuckerberg.
As to multiple branches, if you want to claim separation of powers then how are you going to separate the powers?
Classically we have Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary.
So... to have separation of powers you need to have those three branches cooperate to do something.
So, the Legislative would set the policy, the Executive would enact it, and then WHEN they enact, anyone they enacted it against would get due process in a court of law.
Sound reasonable for your internet censorship concept? It won't work.
Look, do what you want... this entire idea is at best pissing into the wind.
I respect your right to speak and I don't need to be protected from you speech. I legitimately and authentically value freedom of speech. Those calling for censorship either were never advocates or are frauds.