Economics

Quit Worrying and Learn To Love Trade With China

Fretting over deficits and intellectual property will do no good and much harm.

|

Get ready for the Great Trump-Xi Depression. The White House is pursuing two stupid policies, trying to reduce the United States' "balance of payments" with China and trying to protect "intellectual property" from China's thievery. These policies are leading to a crash in the Chinese economy, which has been grossly ill-managed under President Xi Jinping. International knock-on effects were already apparent last autumn, even as the trade deficit ballooned and Americans benefited from Chinese theft.

"Balance of payments" is a silly way of talking, right from the get-go. Are you concerned about your balance of payments with your grocery store? You give Kroger cash and it gives you goods. Worried? I thought not. After all, you have a balance of payments surplus with your employer, right? Hope so. And your scary-sounding deficit with Kroger is good for you. In exchange for money, the store provides healthy food such as oatmeal, walnuts, olive oil, and blueberries. (Try it: I just lost 30 pounds that way, a good deficit.)

The talk of national balances is silly in itself, because the national balance is the result of individual voluntary deals between Harry in New York and Tatsuro in Tokyo to buy a Toyota, say, or Laura in Bloomington and Chenli in Shanghai to buy a Lenovo. Worrying about the balance of trade caused great pain from so-called "stop-go" macroeconomic policy in Britain and in Holland in the 1950s. Growth was reduced by gormless fretting about national hoards of gold.

And "our" deficit in the international balance of trade with China is not alarming even if there's no offset from other trades, because the overall balance of payments, including IOUs, has to balance. It's just accounting. If you spend more than you earn, someone is giving you a loan. If the U.S. imports computers from China more than it exports soybeans to China, "we" have to provide nice-looking IOUs—for example, engraved portraits of Ben Franklin that cost 12.5 cents each to print. For one of Ben's portraits we get $100 worth of computers. Pretty good, eh?

It's what happened to Japan in the 1970s, the other time we became deeply worried about deficits with East Asian people. (Funny how we never worry if the deficits are with British or Dutch people.) The Japanese then, like the Chinese now, bought assets such as Rockefeller Center, usually dollar-denominated. The assets, like the railways in Kenya and the crazy central Asian railway that China is buying now, turned out to be dogs. Then "we" Americans paid the Japanese back in dollars that had meanwhile depreciated by a third. Wait for it.

Some macroeconomic measuring matters, because we can feel the measures in our lives. When a quarter of the labor force was unemployed in 1933, my grandmother knew it, because she had men at her back door begging for food. When in 1984 inflation in Israel was 500 percent per year, the joke goes, an Israeli astronaut got to the moon, on the price level. (How did he get home? On the Israeli exchange rate.)

Unemployment, inflation, and higher income can all be felt in real life and are therefore worth monitoring. But when did you last feel the U.S. balance of trade? You feel only the idiotic policies advocated in reaction to it by Peter Navarro, a White House economist who never learned economics. (His Ph.D. is from Harvard. I'm thinking of turning mine back in.) It would be better if the government did not calculate and announce the balance of payments at all. It's meaningless and an occasion for sin.

What about China stealing intellectual property? Intellectual property sounds nice. If one approves of property rights, surely extending intellectual property, which American law firms are busily doing, must be a good thing?

But it should make you suspicious of the notion of turning human knowledge into exclusive property to hear that both the patent on invention and the copyright on writing were invented by Venetians five centuries ago. La Serenissima was notorious for enforcing monopolies. If a glass blower escaped from the island of Murano and went to Paris to teach the French the secrets of the craft, the Doge would send agents to kidnap him and bring him back, to be thrown into the deepest dungeon of the Ducal Palace.

Less colorfully, the economic historian Joel Mokyr has shown that the vaunted British patent system in imitation of the Venetians was in the 18th century so expensive that it was worthless for encouraging innovation. In fact, from about 1780 to 1800, James Watt stopped innovation in steam engines by fiercely protecting his expensive patent. By contrast, Ben Franklin, he of the $100 bill, gave all his innovations to the world patent-free. Good old Ben.

Patents and copyrights make things that are free in nature artificially scarce in order to cream off profit for the influentials. They are comparable to hack medallions, recently threatened by monopoly breakers Uber and Lyft. (Surprise, surprise: Successful Uber and Lyft are now joining the owners of regular taxis to get the government to restrict the numbers of cars charging for rides.) Pointing out that intellectual property is essentially rent seeking at a recent Cato University gathering produced what can only be described as, by the standard of those hallowed precincts, an uproar. People said indignantly, "What about land? Surely we should have property in patents like we have property in land."

But if I use a plot of land, you can't. By contrast, if I use knowledge of a glass-blowing technique or of a separate condenser for a steam engine, you can use it, too. We both can, and consumers get the benefit. The goal of an economy, as Adam Smith taught us, is consumption, not jobs or production.

Once a drug has been invented, the invention has no opportunity cost. The price of the knowledge should be zero. True, somehow the research needs to be funded, as for a bridge. Before the Brooklyn Bridge was constructed, the resources used to construct it had other uses and therefore a social cost. But from May 23, 1883, letting another person walk across cost nothing, and so the crosser should be charged nothing. It's an economic dilemma with no snappy solution. The economist Steve Horwitz points out that a cooked hamburger also has no opportunity cost and should by this logic sell for zero. Economists would be satisfied with a rough-and-ready rule of, say, a 10-year monopoly. But asserting an expansive right to intellectual property, which Congress then regularly extends in order to preserve the privileges of drug companies and the Walt Disney Corporation, is no solution.

If the Chinese steal ideas, we American consumers get the benefit. If the Chinese subsidize their exports, we American consumers get the benefit. Relax.

Advertisement

NEXT: "Your Honor, My Stomach Just Naturally Produced Alcohol"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Another good thing about trade is that it makes us more likely to get along and it probably helps technology advances by giving everyone access to everything. Maybe some French dude has some of the ‘je ne sais pas’ that leads to innovation in glass making that wouldn’t have happened if the Venetian hadn’t introduced glass making to French.

    1. “Another good thing about trade is that it makes us more likely to get along …”

      Amen nine ways to Sunday!!! A shooting war is far less likely if we refrain from trade wars. If we are totally intertwined (interdependent) economically… Very much like ancient tribes who were intermarried… Then we’re far less likely to start shooting one another. WAR SUCKS!!! Make love, not war!!!!

      1. “Another good thing about trade is that it makes us more likely to get along …”

        I take it you guys never heard of a little skirmish called “World War I”…

        1. I take it you never saw “less likely”.

          I take it you know little of the causes of World War I.

          1. adf inferring others are ignorant…

    2. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out whaat i do…..

      click here =====?? http://www.Therprocoin.com

  2. Bringing about the colapse of the profoundly crooked Chinese government could be worth a little short term economic pain. China has almost always been ruled by egocentric morons convinced of their racial superiority (kinda like Imperial Japan that way), and that means they cannot be trusted.

    1. Any statement that includes the ‘could be’ form is meaningless without error bars. Many things ‘could be’ ? the realm of the possible is vastly larger than the realm of the plausible.

      What is the usual response of “egocentric morons” to the perceived infliction of economic pain?
      If trade does not cross borders, troops eventually will.

      Apfinally, and just by the way, “egocentric moron” is the job requirement for rulers anywhere and everywhere. The difference between Jimmy Carter and Kim Jong Un is one of degree, not kind.

    2. egocentric morons convinced of their racial superiority

      self-awareness eludes many Republicans these days

      1. “self-awareness eludes many Republicans these days”

        The term for that is “projection”, asshole.

        1. Watching right-wingers flail is among the best parts of winning the culture war.

          Ask anyone in the liberal-libertarian mainstream.

          1. “Ask anyone in the liberal-libertarian mainstream.”

            The term for that is “fantasy”, asshole.

          2. Your kind are beginning to eat each other Arty. Then we need only put down the survivors.

            1. You are always advocating violence, Shiteater.

              Channeling your inner Stalin again, Fuckhead.

          3. ‘Winning the culture war’ – right when your party is in the midst of a massive civil war?

      2. Yeah, as if Progressives don’t consider themselves a race above and beyond all the others.

      3. Look at policies. The Democrats are just as racist as they were in the 1950’s, the 1920’s, or (for that matter) the 1860’s. Tey’ve found a way to USE the minorities and lower classes they despise, but that doesn’t mean they consider them equals. Slavery did less to damage the structure of Black families than the (Democrat) Great Society policies.

        1. +10

    3. 1. Its nice you know enough about a nation of 300 million people that you can make that decision for us.

      2. When has economic warfare ever destroyed a tyranny? In the history of the world, please, you should be able to find one example.

      China has almost always been ruled by egocentric morons convinced . . .

      The irony.

  3. Workers in communist China don’t have any rights that we take for granted and add cost to everything we do.

    They work like slaves in unsafe conditions for peanuts so take a guess how we’ll complete.

    But our homes are full of cheap disposable products that consume our resources and pollute our shared earth.

    Don’t worry, be happy. Fuck you.

    1. “Workers in communist China don’t have any rights that we take for granted and add cost to everything we do.
      They work like slaves in unsafe conditions for peanuts so take a guess how we’ll complete.”

      You have no idea what “rights” are, and you just proved it. No one has a “right” to a regulated work-place.
      ———————————————–
      But our homes are full of cheap disposable products that consume our resources and pollute our shared earth.”

      Stuff you’re ‘shared earth’ bullshit up your ass.

      1. I can’t tell if you’re in prison or just your mothers basement.

        Fuck off troll.

        1. My guess is middle school.

          1. Actually, Sevo is one of our elderly commenters.

        2. Rob, you’re a holocaust denier. So you’re pretty despicable. You have no business talking to anyone like that.

          1. Doesn’t mean he’s not on point about China.

          2. My foolproof ideology is to discern the truth, reality with logic and science and then accept and share it.

            If you don’t like that, you can argue with logic and science, note the irony, or fuck off troll.

            I don’t believe in Santa Claus either and that story isn’t suspiciously protected from contrary evidence by censorship laws and brainwashed adults.

            http://europeansworldwide.word…..ropaganda/

            The link above references an official letter from the head of British propaganda warning the war office from referencing “gassing, for which there is no evidence”.

            When the people who made the claim admit that it was bullshit propaganda, it takes mental gymnastics NOT to believe them.

            When the official story is protected from conflicting evidence, censored by law, it takes myopia not to be suspicious.

            There is so much more evidence that refutes the story.

            Try reading a copy of Nickolas Kollerstroms book “Breaking the spell”. You might learn something.

            http://www.goodreads.com/book/…..-the-spell

    2. They work like slaves in unsafe conditions for peanuts so take a guess how we’ll complete.

      But our homes are full of cheap disposable products that consume our resources and pollute our shared earth.

      So, which is it? We’ll be treated like slaves and make peanuts or we’ll have homes full of consumer goods?

      Christ, do you understand how moronic you look?

      1. Cheap disposable shit that consumes our resources and pollutes our shared earth.

        Go work and live in China, then run your mouth dipshit. They won’t even record your industrial death.

        1. So you don’t understand.

  4. Have I mentioned how awful Tulsi Gabbard is?

    Short-sighted politicians & media pundits who’ve spent last 2 years accusing Trump as a Putin puppet have brought us the expensive new Cold War & arms race. How? Because Trump now does everything he can to prove he’s not Putin’s puppet?even if it brings us closer to nuclear war.

    What a bunch of nonsense. The Democrats should establish a litmus test for #TrumpRussia ? anyone who denies Drumpf is Putin’s Puppet should not be welcome in the party.

    #LibertariansAgainstGabbard

    1. After all the talking Trump has done with his Chinese counterparts, it’s surprising that Mueller hasn’t expanded his Russian probe to include China.

      1. Too much chance of stumbling on to crimes committed by someone other than Trump.

        1. And China owns half the US government.
          Our politicians and multinational-corporate leaders are only too happy to sell out our country and its citizens for Chinese perks

          1. Which perks? Which ones?

            1. Money. Bribes. That kinda thing

        2. Bingo.

      2. And how about Trump’s collusion with that illegal immigrant, Melania???

        1. Hot chicks are always legal. Gotta watch the ratio.

    2. Man, how can Tulsi be so great on foreign policy and so terrible on domestic policy?

  5. “The White House is pursuing two stupid policies, trying to reduce the United States’ “balance of payments” with China and trying to protect “intellectual property” from China’s thievery. These policies are leading to a crash in the Chinese economy, which has been grossly ill-managed under President Xi Jinping.”

    Couple of issues here.

    1) Our primary concern should be the U.S. economy.

    If Trump’s trade policies are bad for the American economy, then that’s why we should oppose them.

    2) China’s exports have fallen as the global economy has slowed, and it’s most pressing concern is weakness in domestic demand.

    You may have heard about iPhone sales in China disappointing Apple in particular. That isn’t because of Trump’s trade policies. That’s about weakness in China’s domestic demand rather than Trump’s trade war. It isn’t clear that Trump’s trade demands are the primary cause of China’s decelerating growth although they certainly haven’t helped.

    1. Couple of issues here.

      1) Our primary concern should be the U.S. economy.

      There’s no “Us vs. Them” when it comes to economics.

      1. Thank you.

      2. If a US government is going to exist (minarchist vs anarchist debate, but there’s nothing to talk about here unless we assume minarchism), then its concern should be the property rights of Americans, not the property rights of the planet.

      3. “There’s no “Us vs. Them” when it comes to economics.”

        Hey, I have this nice bridge in Brooklyn I would like you to buy.

      4. “There’s no “Us vs. Them” when it comes to economics.”

        We’re talking about politics.

        Did you read the quote I was responding to?

        “The White House is pursuing two stupid policies, trying to reduce the United States’ “balance of payments” with China and trying to protect “intellectual property” from China’s thievery. These policies are leading to a crash in the Chinese economy, which has been grossly ill-managed under President Xi Jinping.”

        Why should American voters care if these policies are leading to a crash in the Chinese economy? American voters care about the American economy. incidentally, American voters shouldn’t care much about whether our trade policy works well for nation of Paraguay either. Worry about the best interests of the United States.

        P.S. I don’t care what’s in the best interests of Iraq, either, seeing as I’m not an Iraqi. If we’re talking about U.S. policy, tell me how it impacts the U.S. Why is that so hard for some people to understand?

        P.P.S. As a Capitals fan, I don’t care much about how our trades impact the Anaheim Ducks. I care about how our trades impact the Washington Capitals. Is that really difficult to follow?

        1. Yes Ken, it is for them. They have bizarre globalist trade ideas.

      5. I thought you were dead Old Mexifry. I’m sorry to see you’re not.

        1. Well, aren’t you a pleasant fellow.

          1. I’m big as life and twice as cute, but I hate shitbirds like Mexifry. He can drop dead.

          2. I’m big as life and twice as cute, but I hate shitbirds like Mexifry. He can drop dead.

      6. I thought you were dead Old Mexifry. I’m sorry to see you’re not.

      7. ‘There’s no “Us vs. Them” when it comes to economics.’

        Go ask Xi what he thinks about that.

    2. Our primary concern should be natural human rights, as in the right to own stuff and do with it as we please as long as we don’t harm others, as in the right to trade with whom we please as we please.

      Your concern with the “US economy” shows a parochial interest in restricting my property rights in favor of the “greater good” as determined by you.

      Fuck off, slaver.

      1. As long as it doesn’t harm others?
        Cool.
        Since you get to set your own definition of harm, I’ll set mine.
        Should be fun

  6. Patents and copyrights make things that are free in nature artificially scarce in order to cream off profit for the influentials

    Property rights make things that are free in nature artificially scarce, too. WTF is wrong with libertarians these days? Apparently everything else is going to go under the bus in the interest of flooding us with cheap trinkets and unwanted immigrants.

    1. Libertarians don’t want immigrants?

      Modern, successful, educated people — including those who are libertarians — welcome immigration.

      Get an education.

      1. Some of those “modern, successful, educated” Americans have children they want to leave a free, secure, and prosperous America.

        Import Not Americans
        Become Not America

    2. If you canna see the difference between ideas, which are naturally free and usable by many people at once, vs scare things like land which can only be used by one person at a time, then you need to start over again with Econ .001.

      1. Faith alone!
        Such shallow dogma

      2. In the absence of patents, companies practice in secret. If you wanted to buy that next Viagra pill you so desperately need, the company would require you to sign a non disclosure non analysis agreement. When you broke that you would end up in jail. Or as long as the structure was secret other companies could not work on variations since they wouldn’t know where to start. Business practices would be much more antagonistic than they are already.

        Patents require disclosure of the ‘best mode’ of the process. This allows anyone to analyze it and ‘build a better mousetrap.’ This greatly accelerates innovation and progress.

        1. When you broke that you would end up in jail.

          Sued, not jailed.

      3. Alphabet douche, you aren’t discussing economics, just your vague feelings, not backed up by real logic or sound theory.

        This is why you’re an idiot and so detested. Much like Pedo Jeffy, but minus the pedophile illegals.

  7. “Patents and copyrights make things that are free in nature artificially scarce in order to cream off profit for the influentials.”

    This is a red herring.

    We’re not talking about companies being able to sue other companies for violating U.S. patents. We’re talking about forced joint ventures and forced technology transfers as a condition of doing business in China.

    “BEIJING?China made last-minute changes to a proposed foreign-investment law, trying to address U.S. complaints about forced technology transfer and bolster a compromise seen as crucial to striking a trade deal with Washington.

    In the past week, the national legislature quietly amended a draft of the law to tighten up channels used to leak intellectual property.

    . . . .

    The new language takes aim at the regulatory review panels, known as “conformity assessments,” that foreign companies must pass before manufacturing new cars and other products or setting up plants.

    —-WSJ, March 13, 2019

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/ch…..552566137?

    Again, this is about the Chinese government forcing American companies to share trade secrets with rivals before they can get a permit to open a store, factory–or it may even require the American company to form a joint venture with a Chinese rival. That would be a problem even if there were no patent system in the United States.

    1. Then don’t do business there. if companies want to invest their own money under those conditions, that is their business. Not yous, not mine; theirs.

      Fuck off, slaver.

      1. But who’s the slaver there? Seems it’s the Chinese gov’t. Can the US gov’t say, “Fuck off, slaver” to the Chinese gov’t on behalf of Americans?

      2. You might as well say if businesspeople want to pay the squeeze to the Mafia, it’s no biz of the police to interfere.

        1. Excellent point.

      3. “Then don’t do business there. if companies want to invest their own money under those conditions, that is their business. Not yous, not mine; theirs.”

        If you don’t want your rights violated, then don’t go there–within the context of a trade treaty that’s been ratified by the U.S. Senate?!

        That’s the stupidest things I’ve ever heard.

        1. Alphabet douche is a very stupid person.

    2. this is about the Chinese government forcing American companies to share trade secrets with rivals before they can get a permit to open a store, factory–or it may even require the American company to form a joint venture with a Chinese rival.

      I think that word “force” means something vastly different from what you think.

      I think you are afraid of foreigners for other reasons if you think that voluntary deal between US businesses and the Chinese government is “force”, but do not raise an even bigger scream about the US government truly forcing US businesses to comply with far more onerous requirements to do voluntary business with US people and other US companies.

      I think borders are confusing to you. Your mind seems to translate ordinary words differently on different sides of borders.

      1. What makes you think Ken Schulz does not emit an even bigger scream over that?

      2. Again, these comments are embarrassingly stupid within the context of a trade treaty.

        1. True dat. Mr alpha-beta seems not to know his p’s and q’s!

    3. There is also widespread and brazen violation of both patents and copyrights that goes unpunished (and in many cases, is supported by) by the Chinese government. Something that has been shown on this site several times.Trying to pretend that this doesn’t exist or is completely unimportant is just absurd.

  8. Profiting off of slavery is A OK, as long as it’s in a different country!

    LIBERTOPIA here we come!

    1. This lady is not for Libertopia. She has been indoctrinating young adults for some time.

      She needs the Commies to have their trade or their economy falters.

    2. The secondary problem with Chinese workers’ right is that they have no individual recourse to the courts like workers here in the United States, which is essential for workers to protect their rights. Small state libertarians believe that if government has any legitimate role, it’s to protect our rights–and so having access to courts for that reason is essential to a free society. Workers who have been mistreated by management can win millions here in the U.S., but in China, much of industry is effectively owned by government officials, and average people suing them for damages is a pipe dream.

      The primary problem in China is that everyone is effectively represented by a union that controls the government.

      The primary problem and the secondary problem are interrelated. It’s interesting that so many stupid people seem to think that the solution to workers’ problems are unions and government influence with industry, when that seems to be the source of the problems everywhere else in the world.

      1. The primary problem is people like you thinking you have the right to tell others what they can do and who they can do it with. You see that in the Chinese government and think that gives you the right to do the same to others to protect them from the people oppressed by the Chinese government.

        Let’s see, how’s that work …. Bob oppresses Jack, so Ken oppresses William into not doing business with Jack …. yeah, there’s logic for you.

        1. WTF are you talking about?!

          Chinese workers having access to the courts to sue their employers for violating their rights isn’t a bad thing–regardless of whether I’m the one that thinks their rights should be protected by the courts.

    3. “Profiting off of slavery is A OK, as long as it’s in a different country!”

      Average people in Venezuela are suffering from malnutrition, but we don’t have to worry about implementing those kinds of policies here in the U.S.–because Venezuela is a foreign country?

    4. “Profiting off of slavery is A OK, as long as it’s in a different country!”

      Leave it to Trumpistas (who are economically illiterate, besides being incompetent) to repeat and rehash the same tired and old (and wrong) leftist tropes their Statist brethren on the other side of the economically illiterate spectrum spewed for years. Anyone who doea more than you with less money must be a slave, in the mind of socialists and Trumpistas.

      1. The Democrats have completely abandoned the blue collar middle class in favor of SJWs. These people voted for Obama in 2008 because of his rhetoric for blue collar voters, and these people felt betrayed by Bill Clinton for not fighting against NAFTA and GATT. The people didn’t change. They just got dumped into the Republican Party by default. Trump is somewhere to the left of Bill Clinton on trade. Why would the people change–just because they switched parties?

      2. “Anyone who doea more than you with less money must be a slave, in the mind of socialists and Trumpistas.”

        Old Mess can read minds!!

    5. “Hands off my free trade with slavers!”

  9. The White House is pursuing two stupid policies, trying to reduce the United States’ “balance of payments” with China and trying to protect “intellectual property” from China’s thievery.

    Jesus, you fucking piece of shit Lefty. Whose side are you on?

    How about China free Tibet and then we treat China as our buddy.

    Until then, we might trade with China but the Commies are not our friends. The Chinese are very aggressive toward all their neighboring nations and are clearly building man-made islands in the South China Sea for a military showdown.

    If China wants free trade with the USA, great! Lets have free trade. Until then, the USA not let China steamroll over us.

    1. How about you stop telling everybody else who they can do business with?

      How about you minding your own business?

      How about you not being a fucking slaver?

      How about you understanding a few simple economic truths?

      All too much, I know, but how about it?

      1. Yea LC! Stop being a slaver

        Leave pedophiles alone, they just want to love!

        Leave thieves alone! they just want stuff too

        Leave murderous dictators alone! their constituents getting mowed down isn’t bad!

        Leave radical islam alone, those gays like getting thrown off rooftops!

        Bunch of slavers round here, trying to get in the way of a good time. Thank god for the alphabet asshole setting things straight

      2. “How about you minding your own business?”

        How about you take your own advice and leave? No one likes your moronic shitposting. It’s even that you’re a progtard. You’re just an annoying retard with no real point whatsoever.

        You are literally too obtuse and limited to have a coherent philosophy.

        1. Poor little shitty thinks it has a monopoly on shit posting. You’re not even very good at it.

        2. Not sure how many out in Reasonworld are comments lurkers like me, but I happen to find a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf a beacon of sanity in an otherwise rather authoritarian sea of right-wingers.

          That said, I do really like Ken’s posts even when I disagree with him. I find I learn a lot about the technicalities of the legal and political factors in these debates.

          My ideal would be a David Friedman type of anarchy. But I’d also never agree to that if it meant government shutdown completely overnight. So I’d want Ken on my side to help begin the reduction of the state. And if successful we’d likely eventually part ways over privatizing the courts, police, and military. But if we got to where that was the debate I’d be a happy man even in defeat.

    2. What if they “free” Tibet & then Tibetan self-rule is just as much of a rip-off, or worse?

    3. ” The Chinese are very aggressive toward all their neighboring nations and are clearly building man-made islands in the South China Sea for a military showdown.”

      I’m only just recovering from fears of being robbed and raped by invading caravans of brown people. Now, I’m going to have nightmares over being attacked by aggressive man-made islands in the South China Sea.

      1. He’s not wrong about the islands. By building permanent structures on the islands, China is abusing international law in order to claim some 80% of the South China Sea.
        From wiki: “The sea carries tremendous strategic importance; one-third of the world’s shipping passes through it, carrying over $3 trillion in trade each year,[3] it contains lucrative fisheries, which are crucial for the food security of millions in Southeast Asia. Huge oil and gas reserves are believed to lie beneath its seabed.[4]”

        1. ” “The sea carries tremendous strategic importance; one-third of the world’s shipping passes through it, carrying over $3 trillion in trade each year,[3] it contains lucrative fisheries, which are crucial for the food security of millions in Southeast Asia. ”

          Energy security too. I believe virtually all of China’s fossil fuels pass through these seas. About the ‘huge oil and gas reserves,’ I’ll believe it when I see it.

          “China is abusing international law in order to claim some 80% of the South China Sea.”

          We should be thankful it’s only sea water an expansionist China is absorbing, as opposed to territory of her long suffering neighbours, as she’s done for the past 5000 years.

          1. You’re too stupid to understand the problem here. So fuck off and let the rest of us discuss it. You weren’t needed in the first place.

            1. “You’re too stupid to understand the problem here. ”

              Maybe so. I also don’t give a shit about America’s trade with China.

            2. Hey man, not that you’re going to take anything I say seriously, but I don’t think mtrueman was saying anything malicious or even all that wrong.

              I do enjoy watching some of your shitposting, but there’s actually good stuff that goes on here beyond the dunking on lefties… and the sweet, sweet outrage that gets the blood flowing.

              But maybe pull it back, just a tad, on people making coherent points, before this becomes another echo chamber.

              1. But please never stop dunking on Rev. That will never get old

                1. mrtrueman posts a lot of stupid bullshit. Usually a lot of self impressed sophistic baloney.

      2. mtrueracebaiter gonna race bait

        1. I couldn’t help myself. The invading caravan had me in such a tizzy. I’m feeling better now that I’ve had the chance to do some yellow peril handwringing.

  10. How low can Reason go in it’s quest to destroy America. It’s now embarrassing when I think back about being a libertarian. Reason actually doesn’t give a crap about IP rights and not worry about letting a communist country steal them? Fuck of Reason and enjoy your slow death.

    1. Get an education. Start with standard English.

      1. Arty, you didn’t even graduate high school. You’re nothing, and a nobody. This is why you are a progtard. Disaffected losers like you are given the illusion of having a voice against your libertarian and conservative betters, when al, you really are is a drone in your progtarded master’s collective.

        A true useful idiot.

        1. Can’t you just picture Rev – combover, suitjacket, pipe, in his underwear in his mom’s basement with a posters of Obama and AOC typing away on a commadore 64 with a glass of kool-aid next to him?

    2. How about you stop pretending it’s about liberty (which is beyond your grasp) and simply start following the basic “don’t hurt people and don’t take their stuff” mantra?

  11. Jane Fonda Syndrome is real and rampant.

    She starts out opposing the Vietnam War on reasonable grounds, but, over time, in order to justify that position, she starts believing all sorts of things that aren’t true. No, just because you oppose the Vietnam War, you don’t have to vouch for the good treatment of American POWs who have actually been tortured, but that’s the way a lot of people’s minds work.

    If you’re in favor of gun rights, you don’t have to pretend that every time someone shoots somebody else, it’s a justifiable homicide. Sometimes, people violate each other’s rights with a gun, but I support gun rights anyway.

    I oppose Trump’s trade policies. Just because I oppose them doesn’t mean I have to pretend that everything about them is wrong in every way. In fact, for the sake of the American economy, I hope I’m wrong about Trump’s trade policies. I hope Trump reaches a new trade agreement with China, and it’s of huge benefit to the U.S. I still think he was wrong to initiate a trade war, but even if he was wrong to do that, I don’t have to pretend that forced technology transfers and forced joint venture are a good thing.

    Come down off the AA gun, Hanoi Jane! You’re making opposition to the Vietnam War look bad.

    1. That seems to be about how my friend Ralph became anti-vax, i.e. by defending people from the legal oblig’n to vaccinate.

      1. It’s always a temptation to imagine our side is virtuous and the other side is evil. I see people every week put up comments about how libertarians always said there weren’t supposed to be any losers when it comes to free trade and free markets. No sane libertarian would say such a thing under normal circumstances, but I’ve seen people say that shit. Yeah, if you lose your overpaid job to cheaper foreign competition, and you’re in your 50s, chances are you will not be better off because of free trade–even if the rest of society will be.

        There are millions of issues that shake out that way. Our minds may be programmed to see threats in terms of black and white. We have to police ourselves.

        I see ENB write things all the time on prostitution that way. I dare say that just because we’re against sex trafficking hysteria doesn’t mean that there aren’t any victims of sex trafficking anywhere, but you might think it’s all a big hoax if you were listening to ENB. If there were a sex trafficking ring next door, she might not see it–because she doesn’t want to see it.

    2. “Come down off the AA gun, Hanoi Jane! You’re making opposition to the Vietnam War look bad.”

      Fonda wasn’t opposed to the Vietnam war, as her posing at the gun emplacement should have made clear. She was opposed to American involvement, but supported shooting down American aircraft. She supported the Vietnamese defending themselves against foreign aggression.

      1. So Jane Fonda wasn’t wrong to deny that POWs were being tortured–because she was only against American involvement and not the war itself?!

        This phenomenon isn’t common among true believers on a host of issues–because Jane Fonda was only against American involvement and not the war itself?!

        You’re not really saying any of those things, are you–just lost in left field again, mtruman.

        1. “So Jane Fonda wasn’t wrong to deny that POWs”

          I’m not arguing whether Fonda was wrong or right. I’m asserting she was opposed to American involvement, but very much supported the Vietnamese efforts to defend themselves from foreign aggression. That’s why she posed in front of an anti-aircraft gun.

          As for torture, you seem to forget her North Vietnamese hosts tortured their own in greater numbers and with more gusto than the Americans got. She probably denied that, too.

  12. The analogy about the grocery store is so stupid that it insults the intelligence of the reader. Do I worry about the balance of payments to the grocery store? Sure I do. I want to keep it as low as possible so I can spend my money on other things. More importantly, I only don’t have to worry about it because I run a balance of payment surplus with my employer. So the analogy proves nothing.

    Reason is so fanatical, corrupt and stupid on this issue, they are unworthy of engagement. First, if they want to claim that the US` can forever run trade deficits, which is effectively just borrowing to finance consumption, then they need to shut up about the national debt and the government’s deficit because the arguments used to dismiss the concerns over those, they we are just shuffling money around and owe the debt to ourselves, apply equally well to trade deficits. Reason can’t reject them in one instance and embrace them in another.

    Second, there are other considerations beyond giving the the hipsters at reason access to cheap shit from China and making reason’s corporate donors more money. China is an adversary that is a real threat to the peace in East Asia. Perhaps financing their military industrial complex and security state via a trade deficit is a bad idea. Trading with them and running a trade deficit hasn’t made them any more peaceful or any less of a threat. In fact it has done just the opposite..

    1. Speaking of bad analogies, how are trade deficits effectively borrowing? Because someone a long time ago decided to call it a trade “deficit?” And just because you’d like to pay less for groceries doesn’t mean your purchase of groceries is a bad exchange. Obviously it isn’t, otherwise you wouldn’t buy them. Yet people voluntarily buying goods from overseas is automatically a bad exchange?

      1. “Yet people voluntarily buying goods from overseas is automatically a bad exchange?”

        Not people, hipsters. Get it straight.

    2. Perhaps financing their military industrial complex and security state via a trade deficit is a bad idea.

      If you think this is a bad idea, then you are free to spend your money elsewhere.

      You should not be free to force me to spend my money elsewhere.

      1. Isn’t your money tied up in smuggling illegal sexual predators, and kiddie porn?

        Pedo Jeffy, you are not free to spend your money help our enemies to kill us. You little pedo traitor piece of shit.

        You are a good example of why we need to get back to firing squads for traitors.

        1. Last of the Shitlords: last defender of our domestic sexual predators.

    3. Your comprehension of analogies is pretty dismal. She said nothing about not caring about spending as little as possible. Were’d you get that straw, man?

      Your misinterpretation of an analogy proves only that you grasp at straws.

    4. Perhaps you should not finance the Saudi military by paying US taxes.

      Perhaps you should not finance the Democrat and Republican parties by paying taxes which go to public campaign financing.

      Perhaps you should stop confounding liberty with the notion that you get to tell others who to do what business with.

      Perhaps you should fuck off, slaver.

      1. Yea slaver! Let the Chinese slavers slaver, or you’re a slaver!

        Fuck human rights! EVERYONE NOT ME IS SLAVERS!

      2. “Perhaps you should not finance the Saudi military by paying US taxes.”

        Do you have a link for this?

        Here’s the way the U.S. “supports” the Saudi military:

        “The U.S. military supports the [Saudi] coalition with logistics, intelligence sharing and arms sales. Previously, the United States also provided aerial refueling to coalition jets, but the administration suspended that support in November.”

        http://thehill.com/policy/defe…..s-in-yemen

        When you say that U.S. taxpayer money is going to the Saudi military, I think you may just be making shit up.

        Do you have a link? Or did you just make that up?

        Or maybe you don’t think U.S. should be allowed to buy military hardware from U.S. defense companies?

        The last time I read about money exchanging hands between the Saudi government and anyone in the U.S., it was the Saudis buying some $110 billion worth of military hardware from U.S. suppliers. Taxpayer money going to the Saudi military? I don’t think so.

        1. “US-Saudi Arabia seal weapons deal worth nearly $110 billion immediately, $350 billion over 10 years”

          http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/20…..visit.html

        2. The alphabet guys seems like he’ll believe anything so long as it confirms his preexisting biases–he apparently even believes shit he makes up himself!

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn_PSJsl0LQ

        3. He should have said Israeli military.

    5. You take that back!
      Nothing bad can happen from enriching the most powerful dictator in the world!
      My Econ 101 class told be so!

  13. China and trying to protect “intellectual property” from China’s thievery.

    So protecting property rights is now “stupid”? Good to know Reason is so faithful to its Libertarian principles.

    1. “Patents and copyrights make things that are free in nature artificially scare….”.

      Wow. Talk about not seeing the big picture. Was Viagra free in nature before a company discovered how to mix compounds to make it? Was Excel? This is all about incentives for innovating, and the authors know it. But rather than debating the appropriate IP rights for various innovations, they default to no IP rights at all, with not a whit as to why that would work. The first rule of economics is scarcity. The second is that incentives matter. If the authors want to pretend the second rule is BS they better come up with a decent argument as to why not. Ignoring it is economic negligence.

      1. “This is all about incentives for innovating, and the authors know it.”

        Since when do humans need incentives to invent and innovate. It comes as naturally as sex, and lasts longer.

        If anything needs incentives, it’s picking up after ourselves.

        1. This is an incredibly dumb post. Stupendously dumb.

      2. You can talk about protecting inventions from being copied for a period of time as an incentive to invent, but you can’t legitimately call it enforcement of property rights.

    2. There is a long and well known argument in libertarianism concerning the legitimacy of intellectual property rights.

  14. I am making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people say to me how much money they can make connected so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my existence. This is what I do?. http://www.home.jobs89.com

  15. Thank you for admitting that a net trade deficit with foreign countries means that other countries will buy our property or our government bonds. This takes land from our children and is a form of enslavement when it comes time for them to pay back the loan. And the time will come. We are mortgaging away our future and this is the real threat to the kids and is what they should be out on the streets protesting (not global warming or gun rights). As for intellectual property, this is no different than if they came here and stole our lands. Of course they could put something better on the land than what was before. Should we then rejoice?

    NK is a puppet of China – they use it to extort us: “Give us all your IP or we’ll let NK develop their nuclear weapons.” I don’t think Trump addressed the problem in the right way, but at least he’s trying. I don’t understand why everyone here is bending over for the Chinese. We are such idiots.

    1. No. Borrowing is horrible and a threat to everything that is right and good, unless it is borrowing to buy things from China. Then it is great. Didn’t you know that?

      1. Right, and the Green New Deal is great because it increases our trade deficit with China plus we can deliver all our IP to them so they can manufacture everything there and we can thereby reduce our greenhouse emissions. Can’t wait for that article.

      2. You don’t have the slightest clue about the very word “borrow” if you thank trade deficits are borrowing. You don’t have the slightest clue about trade deficits if you think they actually exist.

        1. There’s only 1 reason all these $ are available, & that is credit expansion.

          1. There’s only one thing to say to you Hihn, and that is fuck off.

      3. I don’t recall anyone saying borrowing is horrible. Some say borrowing too much is bad, and they think US governments have borrowed too much. What that has to do with a trade deficit is anyone’s guess, but you seem to think that individuals and businesses had to borrow to pay for their purchases of foreign goods. Can you cite those statistics? And then tell us why that level of borrowing for those individuals and businesses is bad.

    2. China needs to be kept down. They are the real enemy and are p,Syktyvkar a very lomg game. So many people here like Pedo Jeffy, and Aplhabet Douche can’t see the problem. They are stupid as usual, and are the enemy within.

  16. Neocons are better than the alt-right, Part 7,293.

    Bill Kristol: To Republicans who’ve been inclined to acquiesce in a Trump re-nomination in 2020: Read his tweets this morning. Think seriously about his mental condition and psychological state. Then tell me you’re fine with him as president of the United States for an additional four years.

    Of course Drumpf supporters will pounce on the fact that Kristol was one of the loudest voices advocating the Iraq War. But nothing the neocons ever did comes close to the brutality and violence against brown bodies of Drumpf’s draconian war on immigration.

    #LibertariansForABetterGOP
    #PutTheNeoconsBackInCharge

    1. Bill Kristol is a fucking asshole. And I’d tell him that to his fucking face.

  17. I’d like to trade marijuana with China but it’s illegal there.

    Legal status of marijuana in China

    MEDICAL MARIJUANA IN CHINA

    The production, sale and possession of any form of medicinal marijuana products are illegal in China.

    RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA IN CHINA

    The cultivation, sale, and possession of cannabis for recreational purposes are illegal in China.
    Last updated MARCH 11-2019 Published OCTOBER 3-2017

    China is known for very strict and harsh anti-drug laws and penalties. In bigger cities like Shanghai it’s not uncommon to find marijuana being sold by dealers in the street, but any possession will be punished.

    We are not aware of any possible law changes in the (near) future in China regarding medical and/or recreational cannabis.

    http://tinyurl.com/yybj73x8

  18. I find the discussion of intellectual property very interesting.

    First because we did similar things when the United States was a young country. I believe (and I maybe wrong) gun powder recipes were stolen from England by early settlers. I have also heard that Thomas Jefferson stole Italian rice to start crops in Virginia.

    Second is that some of the theft is through education. They send student to our country to learn advance techniques that can then be applied back in China. This is a standard techniques of gaining knowledge used for through the ages.

    Third we see it done internally in our own country. Part of the call for the break-up of large tech companies is that they are using their platforms to gain data and then copy successful ideas.

    So I find the intellectual theft part a weak argument to curtail trade with China or any other country. Better to have trade.

    1. The US was “stealing” Charles Dickens’ books well into the 1800s. Yet somehow, he thought it worth his while to make public tours of the US to drum up publicity for his works and earn some money in the process. Strangely, if he had stayed in Britain, he would not have earned as much, and he certainly wouldn’t have earned any more than the nothing he earned from sales of his books.

        1. He gets his history from old episodes of Bonanza

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4R5CI19AzDo

  19. I thought copyright law originated from a monopoly on the publication of books that English Queen Anne (?) gave to the Honourable Company of Stationers or some such. Anyway, doesn’t Reason copyright its material? Doesn’t Ms. McCloskey’s income from writing depend on her material being copyrighted? Would she be OK with someone reprinting her material in full and she getting nothing from it?

  20. “The price of the knowledge should be zero.”

    Seems to me that knowledge is one of the requirements for production of anything; not sure why it “should” have a value of zero. It’s an economic good like any other, to be sold at market rates, ideally.
    Pretty sure Ms.McClosky was paid to impart her knowledge as a professor, and I doubt she or many others working in the education business would do so for nothing.

    1. The value of her ‘knowledge’ is zero. So she has priced it correctly.

      1. Thread winner!

    2. Good post.

  21. Great headline with a great big BUT! That great big BUT is as long as the hindrances to are equal in both ways.

  22. Ironically, this article reads like a cheap, Chinese-made knockoff of a Thomas Sowell article.

  23. Get ready for the Great Trump-Xi Depression.

    Don’t worry boys. We got them Aborto-Freak judges seated.

    1. Worst. Economy. Ever.

      #KrugmanWasRight

  24. Finally some good news.

    Why have four children when you could have seven? Family planning in Niger

    With the world’s highest birthrate, Niger’s population is set to double in 17 years. NGOs are providing contraception, but what if women want more babies?

    Just think of all those potential immigrants to the US. Once Drumpf has been removed from office and we have a President who supports the Koch / Reason immigration agenda, the State Department should devise a plan to bring more Africans here.

    #OpenBorders

    1. That’s why the Bushpigs cured AIDS in Africa! So we could repopulate!

      1. Have you started a weight loss program yet, you Ron Jeremy – lookin’ morbidly obese fuck?

        As your loyal cock ring, I feel obligated to tell you that you need to, because clearly none of your “friends” here at Reason have the heart to tell you how repulsive you look these days. If you gain any more weight, you won’t make it another 20 years. And then what will I do??

    2. “. NGOs are providing contraception, but what if women want more babies?”

      I’m glad to see the great white hope is doing what it can to stop the brown hoards from breeding.

    3. “With the world’s highest birthrate, Niger’s population is set to double in 17 years. NGOs are providing contraception, but what if women want more babies?”

      Migration. It’s always been the best way for humans to escape poverty.

  25. You appear to have a very childlike understanding of geopolitics, are astoundingly ignorant of China’s history of aggression, a foolish expectation that everyone will be happy as long as they have enough stuff to buy and sell.

    1. “You appear to have a very childlike understanding of geopolitics, are astoundingly ignorant of China’s history of aggression, a foolish expectation that everyone will be happy as long as they have enough stuff to buy and sell.”

      China has a long history and it’s periods of peace and periods of subjugation are probably equal to periods of aggression. Libertarians can look on the Yuan Dynasty, where the Mongol Kublai Khan set up shop in Beijing, for an optimistic outcome. Trade with Europe flourished under his regime as it never had before thanks to his ability to ensure safe and secure trade routes, know as the Silk Road. Liberal, religiously tolerant, and meritocratic. They were also rather aggressive launching invasions against neighbouring states, including Japan thwarted by the ‘kamikaze’ which blew the fleet of course. The mongols never amounted to much as sea dogs.

      1. “…Libertarians can look on the Yuan Dynasty, where the Mongol Kublai Khan set up shop in Beijing, for an optimistic outcome. Trade with Europe flourished under his regime as it never had before thanks to his ability to ensure safe and secure trade routes, know as the Silk Road…”

        It is really enjoyable pointing out how full of shit you are.
        The Silk Road was established and functioning on a purely ad-hoc basis at least by the Tang Dynasty, according to documents recovered in Turfan (Turpan), dated, ~670 CE (“Silk Road – A New History”, Valerie Hansen, introduction).
        And (Weatherford, Genghis Kahn) points out it was Kublai’s grandfather Genghis Kahn who lead the conquests west and established a ‘Pax Mongol’ (if you will) based on armed garrisons all the way to eastern Europe, promoting that trade you attribute to his grandson; he died in 1227.
        Kublai Khan the Chinese Yuan Dynasty by conquest in 1271; a bit late to the game. And by that time, the various offspring were splitting the empire into warring states; not conducive to long distance trade. Perhaps I’m wrong? A cite to a source would help.
        BTW, Xinjiang is wonderful this time of year, so long as you aren’t a Uyghur targeted by the Chi Coms. In the spring melt, the Jade river still flows from Hotan to near Korla.
        Try learning something before you make an ass of yourself.

        1. “BTW, Xinjiang is wonderful this time of year, so long as you aren’t a Uyghur targeted by the Chi Coms. In the spring melt, the Jade river still flows from Hotan to near Korla.
          Try learning something before you make an ass of yourself.”

          XinJiang is cold this time of year. Very cold. Summer is nice. I was really struck by the sidewalks in Turpan, covered with trellises supporting grape vines and providing much needed shade to pedestrians.

          And Sevo, I share your love of the Tang dynasty, probably my fave, if pressed on the matter. Wise rulers, beautiful works of art, especially wood cuts, and where the game of go got established in its modern form.

          1. “XinJiang is cold this time of year. Very cold. Summer is nice. I was really struck by the sidewalks in Turpan, covered with trellises supporting grape vines and providing much needed shade to pedestrians.”
            Nice try; bullshit. No shade required if it is cold.

            “And Sevo, I share your love of the Tang dynasty, probably my fave, if pressed on the matter. Wise rulers, beautiful works of art, especially wood cuts, and where the game of go got established in its modern form.”
            So you are full of shit.

            1. William Blake, the romantic poet, was another engraver, on copper. He would even compose his poems as he scratched the letters into copper, in reverse! Now I found that impressive.

          2. And again, since it is so much fun to point out that you are full of shit:
            “XinJiang is cold this time of year. Very cold. Summer is nice. I was really struck by the sidewalks in Turpan, covered with trellises supporting grape vines and providing much needed shade to pedestrians.”
            Turpan avg. high for March: 61*F. Avg. high for summer: 104*F.
            Here’s the cite, scumbag: http://www.travelchinaguide.co…..-to-go.htm

            1. I prefer summer to winter in that part of the world.

      2. …meanwhile in Baghdad the kind and tolerant Mongols sacked Baghdad and killed everyone.

        This has got to be the first time I have ever read such bullshit. It is like you make up history and believe it. Better yet is to act like acts from nearly a thousand years ago have any bearing on what the Communist Chinese are doing in the South China Sea with their navy today or the massive surveillance state they are establishing right now.

        You are an ignoramus of the first order who knows just enough random bullshit to think yourself smart but too dumb to realize your limitations.

        1. Thanks for your input. I hope you are building an anti chinese bunker or something to protect you from those islands attacking you.

  26. “Funny how we never worry if the deficits are with British or Dutch people.”

    Actually, we have. The protective tariffs of the 19th Century were designed to protect home industries from European competition, especially British competition after the Brits started pursuing free trade. It continued into the 20th Century. (Remember Smoot-Hawley? Or did they skip that subject at Harvard?)

    And oh yeah, one of the justifications for the tariffs then, like today, is supposedly protecting American workers from “underpaid” Competition from abroad.

    Regardless whether you oppose protectionism or not, you must admit that it has a long, deep history in American political economy and was not developed as a racist attack against brown people. So spare us the social signaling.

    1. And oh yeah, one of the justifications for the tariffs then, like today, is supposedly protecting American workers from “underpaid” Competition from abroad.

      Wasn’t that the justification for the first immigration laws? “Keep out the Chinese, they’re taking our jobs.”

      1. WTF?! Asians didn’t come here until the gold rush.

      2. WTF?! Asians didn’t come here until the gold rush.

        1. Which is when the first restrictive immigration law was passed. America had open immigration for its first century.

          1. Naturalization was limited to whites at the founding.

            America had open immigration for its first century.

            This is insane. Nearly every immigrant was from a few countries.

            1. That’s bullshit. People were entering the country from all directions. Were new immigrants from unfamiliar places subjected to discrimination, sure, who hasn’t heard of the signs “No Niggers, No Irish, No dogs”?

              Naturalization was limited to whites at the founding.

              I’ll believe that if you can furnish a citation.

        2. WTF?! Asians didn’t come here until the gold rush.

          Yes, and they came here because until then there were no restrictions on who could enter the country.

          It was after Chinese entered the country in large numbers that anyone saw any reason to exclude them.

  27. I build plastic models of ships in my basement. One such ship is a late design Chinese PLA Navy Type 051C Air Defense DDG. This ship is admirably suited for shooting down American F-18s or any missile launched by an F-18 or similar plane.

    China is building a lot of these. Also submarines.

    The day is coming when any internal economic distress in China that Beijing can find no way to cure might be distracted from by a nice, quick, major semi-conventional war that makes clearly the hegemonistic power in the Western pacific and all the little Westernized Asian Tigers had better become tame Hong Kong Kittens really quick.

    Japan and Australia also.

    I think President Trump is getting the word that our Pacific fleet is in more peril than it has been since Dec. 6th, 1941. In fact, it is in probably worse shape technologically, because the ready back up to the front line ships isn’t there and the military-industrial complex behind them that isn’t riddled with foreign espionage agents isn’t there.

    1. I build plastic models of ships in my basement.

      Nerd! Get him, boys!

      Seriously, though, if China is motivated into a war based on a collapsing economy, it will not go well for China in the long run. I think it much more likely that China will keep growing in economic strength and use that economic strength to get its way with her neighbors.

      1. The fact that China would regret it in the long run doesn’t negate the story term danger of a war.

        1. Short term duh

    2. Go look into the Renhai, or Type 055. Will be a true game changer. That ships is a true beast.

  28. The Controversy Surrounding The Man Who Would Be Queen

    As documented below, dissatisfied with the option of merely criticizing the book, a small number of transgender activists worked to try to ruin Bailey professionally and personally. Largely under the leadership of three prominent transwomen?… and Deirdre McCloskey … ?they organized charges of scientific misconduct against Bailey, including charges that he lacked informed consent from research subjects, that he failed to obtain Institutional Review Board (IRB) permission for human subjects research, and that he had sexual relations with a transsexual research subject. They successfully pushed for a top-level investigation of these charges at Northwestern University and for numerous press reports about Bailey’s alleged misdeeds. They successfully arranged a protest against the book’s nomination for a Lambda Literary Foundation (LLF) award and tried to get Bailey’s colleagues (including his closest departmental colleagues) to turn against him or at least distance themselves from him. They devoted elaborate Websites to criticizing and mocking him and his book and anyone with any positive relationship with him. One activist in particular, namely Andrea James, also used the Web to publicly harass Bailey’s children, his ex-wife, his girlfriend, and his friends.

    1. McCloskey hates state regulators, unless they can be used to destroy the author of books he doesn’t like.

    2. I skimmed a lot of that story. It honestly is pretty fucked up and Ms. McCloskey seems like a dirtbag from it.

    3. Transexuals have mental illness and their delusions just spill over into other areas of their lives.

      1. loveconstitution1789|3.18.19 @ 10:49AM|#

        Transexuals have mental illness and their delusions just spill over into other areas of their lives

        I don’t hold people who call in armed government enforcers to round up people for lacking their papers in the highest of regard. Not that it should matter to you what some rando online thinks about you. But I think a case *could* be made that you are objectively* a pretty bad person for that.

        *And by “objectively” I mean by any current known sense of rational morality.

  29. “the vaunted British patent system in … the 18th century so expensive that it was worthless for encouraging innovation.”

    Between the enactment of the Statute of Monopolies in the mid-1600s and the Opium Wars in the mid-1850s, Britain went from being an imperilled backwater to conquering much of the world and defeating the world’s largest economy through technical superiority alone.

    “In fact, from about 1780 to 1800, James Watt stopped innovation in steam engines by fiercely protecting his expensive patent.”

    How can anyone even write that? Watt’s engine was the first that could do real work affordably and reliably, and he charged customers based on how much money it saved them. His competitors added nothing on top of that, so there was no competing innovation to stop.

    His suit was expensive because British law was ambiguous about whether improvements to existing ideas could be patented.

    “By contrast, Ben Franklin, he of the $100 bill, gave all his innovations to the world patent-free.”

    Perhaps that’s why his ideas at the Constitutional Convention were ignored by its wealthier delegates. Their BATNA was to laugh at him; his BATNA was to sit in a corner and cry.

    “For one of Ben’s portraits we get $100 worth of computers. Pretty good, eh?”

    Until lenders want their money back.

  30. Shorter: Enriching the Dictator for Life of the world’s largest ppp economy – what could possibly go wrong?

    “And “our” deficit in the international balance of trade with China is not alarming even if there’s no offset from other trades, because the overall balance of payments, including IOUs, has to balance. It’s just accounting. If you spend more than you earn, someone is giving you a loan.”

    When did Reason get this stupid? Is it something the Koch’s put in the water?

    People cash in IOUs. Since Emperor Xi makes his own flat screen TVs, he buys countries. Land. Ports. Utilities. Companies. You see it around the world. You see it in the US. You think you’re going to keep your job at Xi Corp if you criticize China? You want to live in Xi Town?

    When Emperor Xi owns the world, will it be a better world? A more libertarian world?

  31. ‘ It’s what happened to Japan in the 1970s, the other time we became deeply worried about deficits with East Asian people. (Funny how we never worry if the deficits are with British or Dutch people.) ‘

    Racebaiters gonna race bait.

    Cuz the only reason Americans would be concerned about Japan or other “East Asian people” gaining power is because Americans are the most racity racist in the world, entirely the opposite of the ever so racially inclusive Han and the Japanese.

  32. Again, I see patents as a red herring here. If there were no patent system in the U.S., we should still take issue with the China government forcing technology transfers and joint ventures. Remember, too, that many of the of the Chinese companies we’re talking about are either owned by government officials or by former commanders in the People’s Liberation Army.

    Being forced to form joint ventures with the government and share all of your technology in return for access would be like having your technology nationalized by the government. Because it’s supposedly a private company (owned by former military and bureaucrats), doesn’t make it much better. The government is still beholden to those powerful people. The most powerful people in that government are the ones who managed to make off with the economic assets.

    Tolerating that within the context of a free trade deal is absurd.

  33. But from May 23, 1883, letting another person walk across cost nothing, and so the crosser should be charged nothing.

    Huh? First of all, recouping the investment requires charging for use. Secondly, there are maintenance costs over time. Thirdly, a bridge is not a good analogy for ideas. You can stop me from crossing your bridge. You can’t stop me from thinking about the idea you had and told others about. You may be able to stop me from acting on it, but that would involve an initiation of force as opposed to defensive force used to prevent one from trespassing a bridge. A pro-IP person may see it as defensive force, but I disagree.

  34. The real problem is that all this stuff is just a blame game. People screw up their lives on their own, then take no responsibility, then want to blame some other person, political party, religion, or government for their sorrows. America is doing just fine. Just stop bitching and blaming the Chinese, or the Russians, or the unwashed masses from Mexico, or the Republicans, or the Democrats. Most of the guys I know who are out of work are fuckups. The rest of us who can’t balance our finances need to stop buying so much shit. We can’t see the obvious, painful truths, that for many of us, we are the architects of our own sorrows. And so, we fall victim to our current snake oil salesman. However, the Democrats are no better and perfected the blame anyone but yourself riff a long time ago. I am amazed that people actually think Tariffs are going to bring back business to America.

  35. I am not worried about the trade with China. I do want the best deal we can get. I do want them to stop stealing industrial processes and secrets and using them despite international law. But trade is fine.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.