Hilliary vs. Trump: The 2016 US Presidental Election

There is much more than cheap workers that goes into making affordable products, among which are the engineering already having been paid for and the near total absence of laws dealing with the proper handling and disposal of toxic materials.
The point is, even if China raised wages to western standards the west would still be nowhere near competitive on manufacturing costs.
So what is the alternative? Do without the stuff? No chance of that happening as there is too much money involved, so politicians just engage in a pointless tit for that which will ultimately achieve absolutely nothing.

And to make matters worse, even if you wrestle away manufacturing from China, workers in the west won't be the ones profiting:

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...e-where-louis-vuitton-makes-its-italian-shoes

Yep, pay £1800 for a pair of shoes and the manufacturing will still be outsourced to some cheap place.

 

Its about removing the source of cheap labour for companies and forcing them to invest in new technologies and automation.
Wrong thread but its one of the very few plus points of Brexit, it will encourage/push companies to invest into new ways of doing things.

 

Trade wars are never a good thing themselves (mainly for consumers), but good can come of them.

The far more important thing Trump has done re-China Recently was blocking the Qualcomm takeover. There has to be a global strategy to stop tolerating China just nicking everyones designs.

 

Buying != nicking
But regardless of that, I agree it was a good thing to block it, imho no tech company should be allowed to buy Qualcomm anyway, because it would lead a very unhealthy market dominance.

 

Do you think monopolies and constant legal challenges to stifle competition are ultimately good for human innovation in an era of democratised manufacturing?

 

Yes.

Because R&D isn't free.

If someone wanted to use my financial models, you're damn right I wouldn't give them out for free.

 

I disagree...Wikipedia is much better than encyclopedia than Britannica. If sunk costs are spread out over the globe then they're nominal for each individual...leaving only prospective costs for someone who's actually making something, and if they're to make a profit then the thing they make has to be the best iteration, or at least up there with the best. It gives the consumer the best product, drives innovation, removes patent trolls, gives the little guy a fighting chance, and ultimately facilitates easier movement of money through the economy.

 

Thats because Wikipedia is, and always has been open source, and isn't for profit.

You're saying you want Perfect Competition in all markets? Some barriers to entry exist in certain products for very good reasons, and things as basic as local scarcity of base resources or labor. I assume you're saying this because it is the only market structure that can result in a socially optimal level of output.. except they literally do not, and cannot exist.

 

Nope. I put forward a counter argument against R&D claim. Nice attempt at a straw man though.

 

I saw zero counter to the claim that R&D isn't free.

 

That's good. I didn't say it was free, I said it could be widely distributed.

 

Example:
Intel refuses to allow anyone but AMD and themselves to produce x86 CPUs.
Wouldn't it be better for everyone if they would sell access to the x86 license on the open market rather than forcibly restricting the market to two players?
After all, Intel has zero reason to care if their money comes from x86 licenses sold or from CPUs sold and everyone else benefits from increased competition.
So yes, I'd argue that you can make the results of your R&D more accessible without problems (excluding military stuff for obvious reasons).

 

If you want to go down that line - there is a difference between open source technology as the basis of R&D and the standard itself.

The example I was taught for that is the shipping container. Rather than a patent, it was open-sourced so it could be adopted en mass. However, that doesn't stop Maersk et all spending billions on developing more efficient ships & tracking technology to send them. With the financial models I use, they are based on fairly simple everyday facts and figures (the standard), but the hours I've put in adapting it and altering the code behind it are the valuable part.

And under IFRS you capitalise R&D as an asset, so you'd have to get accountants to change their minds, and good luck with that.

 

Are you reselling an iteration of the standard, or is your income derived from using your unique financial model for another purpose?

 

With a shipping container (or to use a tech example lets say RJ45 connector) the initial value of the invention is very low but rises exponentially as it is adopted as a standard, so open sourcing something like that is the best approach (imagine what would happen if lets say truck manufacturers decided to make their vehicles incompatible with your shipping containers and come up with their own proprietary standard instead). So when the value is largely dependant on mass adoption then making it freely available to everyone is the best approach.

But what about other things where the reliance on mass adoption doesn't exist? Like for example what you mentioned earlier, a financial model. The value of that would not increase if you open sourced it, however you wouldn't have to change the available to everyone part, just the freely part.

 

In most cases you do not need a permit to exercise a right, let alone if it puts you at risk.

According to the 11th amendment of the constitution and the 4th, requiring forced registration, insurances and licensing to travel on the highway with your private property is a violation and constitutes extortion under color of law and extortion of a signature: ie, riding down the road as a private citizen is a right / liberty, driving is a profession and therefore subject.

You could legally travel without both a drivers license and insurance, how you chose to travel is up to you: motorcycle, car, truck, SUV what have you.

This ties in with why a drivers license is both cheap and easy to take in the US, it has to be that way for everyone to be able to exercise their right to travel, you could say a drivers license is a compromise to make sure people have the basic knowledge of how to operate a motor vehicle, but, at the end of the day neither a drivers license and insurance is required, or even lawful in order for you to travel.

This compromise also means that when you are 18 you could buy what ever car or motorcycle you wanted with no restrictions, buying say a 200 hp motorcycle as an 18 year old man and as your first bike may not be the most intelligent decision you could make, but it's your decision to make. It’s not for government to provide ‘safety’ or ‘security’ or to 'protect' people from themselves.

Sure you can as along as you don’t compare death due to firearms between two countries where one has guns in circulation with the right to keep and bear arms and the other does not.

Correct.

The right of self-defense that you bring up is an unalienable right possessed by everyone at birth, sure, what the constitution does is to recognize this and bind the federal government from infringing on those unalienable rights and codify them into law as an inherent right. This includes the right to keep and bear arms, they are not awardable privileges.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

 

It's the freedom of movement not travel.

Seriously how can someone who (afaik) lives in America know so little about their own constitution.

If it's correct then why do you keep saying the constitution and its attached amendments grant you those rights when they don't? They don't grant you rights they set limits on what the federal government can or can't do.

I'm not sure you're ever going to understand your own constitution, it doesn't grant any rights, it doesn't codify them into law, it doesn't award anything.

The constitution deals with how and what powers the newly formed federal government would and wouldn't have, it's not a blue print for what people are, or are not, allowed to do, it's a contract between the people, in this case the different states made up of the people, and the federal government.

The federal government is, and always was, meant to be subservient to the people not the other way around.

 

Oh, you're still on about this?

OK. As Corky42 points out, the 11th amendment covers the right to movement/travel, not driving. The right to travel has nothing whatsoever to do with licensing drivers. A right to travel does not in any way mean there's a right to travel in a particular way. Likewise, travelling in a car does not mean you're the one driving it.

Freedom of movement means the government cannot, without good cause (like being on parole), prevent you from traveling within the US, living where you choose, or working where you choose. Likewise, there's a right to international travel that means that without good cause, the government can't stop you from leaving the US or re-entering if you're a citizen. Requiring a drivers license to use public roads doesn't stop you from doing that -- there are other ways to travel.

To quote a recent precedent, Miller v. Reed from the 9th Circuit (a federal court of appeals, not a state court) states that:

(incidentally: Drivers licenses are not required by federal law. They are required by state laws.)

You compare knife crime between such countries, so why not gun crime?

The right to self-defence does not specify what means should be available to you to do so. There are many ways in which one can defend oneself. The right to bear arms does not have any bearing on that. In the UK and the Netherlands for instance people have the right to self-defence without having the right to bear arms.

 

I need my own personal nuclear missile as i have a right to self-defense against Russian nuclear missiles.

 

Apparently Paul Ryan isn't seeking reelection...