Why The USTR Is Working So Hard To Kill American Innovation And The Economy
from the outdated-understanding-of-economics dept
The person who was going to do this week's Techdirt "favorites of the week" post was unable to complete it in time, so instead, with the latest TPP negotiations starting up, I figured I'd post some thoughts on the USTR's view of the world.Over the last few weeks, since the draft of the TPP IP chapter leaked, I've been puzzling over just why the USTR appears to be actively working against the interests of the American people, jobs, innovation and the economy with the proposal. Frankly, the USTR's extreme position makes no sense at all. Yes, the USTR is heavily influenced by patent and copyright maximalists that it placed on the Industry Trade Advisory Committees (ITACs) it relies on for input on its negotiating position. Yes, there's a tremendous revolving door between maximalist lobbyists and the USTR. Yes, the main guy negotiating this part of the agreement is a long term maximalist extremist who can't even comprehend the idea that locking up information and knowledge might be a bad thing.
But it's felt like there's something more. The USTR has been so incredibly obnoxiously dismissive of the idea that these are bad ideas. I'm beginning to think that, while all of the above are a part of it, a much bigger issue is that they simply come at the issue from a historical, debunked and no longer relevant understanding of how economics and economic growth works. That is, the USTR seems to think in the most narrowest of ways that "what's good for big US companies is good for the US economy" -- a view that was popular in the 1950s but has never made much sense. It's the crony capitalism view of the economy that nearly anyone with any experience in economics knows is bunk. They're taking a zero sum view of the world when the world is anything but zero sum, especially when it comes to information and knowledge. It also completely ignores the nature of disruptive innovation and the importance of allowing new innovations to flourish, and companies who can't keep up to die out. Instead, the USTR seems to think that protecting the companies who aren't innovating is its job. That's dangerous and harmful.
The USTR simply doesn't care at all about what the various public interest groups are telling the USTR about the insanity of these proposals because it thinks that those groups are anti-corporation and anti-growth. But that's outdated and, frankly, wrong thinking. While it may be true of some of the groups, many who actually understand these issues recognize that in the world we live in today, the path to economic growth and innovation is to increase knowledge and information sharing and to work together with consumers to benefit both. But the USTR views the world as "corporations vs. the public." And it's firmly on the side of "the corporations." But that's not the way the world works. It's a very last-century view of the world (and wasn't even accurate then).
Today, companies succeed by treating the public right, aligning interests and building products and services that make people better off, not to fuck them over. That is: if you want innovation to flow and the economy to grow, the USTR should be focusing on an agreement that serves the best needs of the public, by lowering the barriers to innovation and information sharing. Instead, it's doing the exact opposite -- raising trade barriers to help a few industries that don't want to adapt and embrace the way the world works in this information era.
The next great innovative companies come out of a world where giving the public exactly what it wants is key, and part of that is an openness and transparency that brings those consumers into the process. But the USTR is supporting the 1950s vision of giant monolithic companies deciding what the public wants, and fighting any attempt to actually work with the public.
The end result is that the USTR is basically setting a trade agreement with a 1950s manufacturing agenda in a twenty-first century information age world. The end result is going to be a complete and utter disaster for the US economy, innovation, jobs and the American public -- not to mention free expression and access to medicines. We've seen the government do braindead things in the past, but the way the USTR has handled the TPP negotiations appears to be one of the most clueless efforts by US government officials ever. Their entire approach is wrong and dangerous -- and they don't even seem to have the slightest clue of what they're about to do to the economy and innovation. What's good for a few giant companies isn't what's best for the American public, jobs or the American economy. And it's downright frightening that the people negotiating an agreement that is going to have a huge impact on all of those things don't seem to understand the basics beyond an outdated view from 70 years ago...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, crony capitalism, economic growth, economics, intellectual property, knowledge sharing, patents, tafta, tpp, ttip, ustr, zero sum
Reader Comments
The First Word
“First, I'm assuming that when you say "Silicon Valley," you're using a (to you) derogatory term to refer to the tech industry. I'm also assuming you mean outsourcing to foreign countries (and not outsourcing to American firms), a.k.a. "offshoring;" otherwise the whole "killing the American economy" line is ridiculous.
The jobs the tech industry outsources are the same jobs everyone else outsources - mainly manufacturing jobs. That is very much a concern, but hardly unique to the tech industry.
There are a fair amount of IT jobs being outsourced as well, but they are only the type of IT jobs that don't require the employee to be on-site, which is not many of them. For example, only three percent of computer science jobs are outsourced. Furthermore, this trend has been reversing in recent years.
But regardless of this issue, the notion that the tech industry "doesn't even employ that many people" is pure hogwash. According to the latest BLS data, the tech industry ("Computer and Mathematical Occupations") employed 3,578,220 people. That's not the top employer, certainly, but it's more than plenty of other industries. For example, it employs more than two times the number of people that are employed in the arts industries (1,750,130).
Furthermore, the median income in the tech industry ($76,270) is higher than any other industry. This means that jobs in that industry have more of a positive effect on the economy than jobs in other industries, due to higher taxes paid and greater disposable income.
In fact, if you calculate the contribution to the economy in this way (total employed times the median annual income), the tech industry comes in at #6, contributing about $273 billion, or roughly 6.03% of the total economy. In contrast, the arts industries rank at #18 (out of 21), contributing about $77 billion, or 1.9% of the total economy.
So, no, they're not "killing the American economy." Organizations that attack them are.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Maybe Older
The real question is what is the controlling interest OVER the government that gets the policy continued regardless of the administrations leanings? Ahh, conspiracy theories. I am sure there are many.
But, you know? One of them may be true.
There is only one thing left to say
STAR CHAMBER!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe Older
Given that assumption, you would have a reason for who is moving the chains.
As for the "controlling interest", it is all about making sense in a box. If you can proove the world is flat to a degree where no politician will doubt your logic (doesn't need to be irrefutable!), you can keep them from sending ships to the end of the world. Doesn't matter what political religion the politician subscripes to. If he/she is convinced that your arguments are correct, you can get them to do exactly what you want. There may be some swingdoors and money changing hands in the dark, but uktimately, what removes a person from reality is the brainwashing from sources they see as "balanced" and "trustworthy" or if they have no "significant", "reasonable" opposing voices (making character assassination on opposing voices another cool tool).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
considering that what they are supposedly doing is again supposedly to be helping the USA people, companies and most importantly, the economy, how come the no1 guy has no say in what they do or how they do it? after all, he is the one that bears the brunt when things go belly up, because he is supposedly in charge of the country and everything/one in it! it seems rather pointless to me to have someone in charge who actually turns out to be nothing more than a 'front man', with no pull whatsoever!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Barack Obama == Zaphod Beeblebrox
"He was briefly the President of the Galaxy (a role that involves no power whatsoever, and merely requires the incumbent to attract attention so no one wonders who's really in charge, a role for which Zaphod was perfectly suited)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaphod_Beeblebrox
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
USTR represents multi-national companies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm reminded suddenly of Catch-22
(Note that Milo was meant to be a parody/satire of war profiteers and therefore is perhaps not the best role model for a real-world country that isn't even engaged in a war. Well, if the war on public knowledge doesn't count.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WHY?
Lets HOLD all our copyrights and charge everyone for using our 75 year old ideas..
Lets sell them Every new concept from 75 years ago. Lets not consider that they have smart people also, and that IF' they come up with an improvement..Lets CHARGE them in court for the idea, the improvement we made 70 years ago, and the one 60 years ago.
Lets not IMPROVE what we have. Lets SELL Stupid things, over and over..
Let watch SAT TV, and be charged for it, for the rest of our lives, when its given away in other countries.
YES other countries LET anyone watch Sat TV, FREE...its cheaper then installing 10000 Antennas around the area, CHARGE for it.
WHY improve computers with 1982 tech, NEVEr let people have better products until they can pay for it, 1000 times.. Even cellphones have better tech then MOSt of our computers.. but to make one, you have 200+ copyrights you have to PAY for..(no wonder they cost so much)
God forgive me..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
its sad to see the champion (??) of free speech feel his only viable argument is to censor. But it does show he has nothing left, and no real argument to counter these comments..
with all this knowledge and information at his fingertips he cannot find a single fact to support his "argument". Its really quite sad..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For them the market has to be on their level and not the other way around.
Why dumb? because those rules that they are trying to create to protect themselves will be the same rules that others more capable people will use to stop them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so its less about greed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not sure why you assume (incorrectly) that I'm talking about Silicon Valley. I'm not. I'm talking about all kinds of innovation. You don't increase innovation by locking up ideas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
While what you perceive as the negative aspects of the agenda may have merit with respect to those industries you typically discuss, such negative aspects do not necessarily hold true across the universe of industries that engage in export sales.
A brief observation, if I may, about exporting aspects of US law via trade agreements. When trading partners export their wares to the US, they typically enjoy the same benefits under the law as are enjoyed by those residing in the US. I do not believe it is at all unreasonable to pursue an agenda to achieve reciprocity. The benefits all parties enjoy here should generally be enjoyed within the territories of our trading partners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The problem is incorporating so-called "intellectual property" provisions into them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It eludes me as to why anyone would even consider questioning such an obviously intellectually superior person as yourself in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
they DONT have equality in the USA..
because of 1 little thing.
Distribution.
Distribution is TOTALLY controlled in this nation..ITS the major handicap. ITS the middlemen..
Go do a price search in japan with the price in the USA of ANIME DVD's..
To sell a product in the USA you have to have a Very low price for whole sellers. then its handled 2-3 times to get to its destination, and then resold. AT about 10 times the price it would be in most other nations. And it isnt the WAGES.
I dont care if they sent the anime DIGITALLY, and was MASS produced int he USA.. For SOME stupid reason it costs 10 times the price it would in Japan.
This goes for Diagnostic goods for cars..ITS A STUPID CHIP..and the WHOLe machine costs $1000+ in the USA..and in Taiwan, it less then $200, and you can get a POCKET READER for $10-15 at harbor freight..
I WONDER if we have all these costs when we EXPORT to poor nations, esp. on FOOD..I want to see a person in Africa pay as much as we do for food..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
under Australian Law it is Illegal to lie in advertisements
under US law sales contracts can destroy consumer legal rights
under Australian law a sales contract cannot negate any consumer law.
which part of US law did you want to export to the rest of the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Saying that both systems of laws had their start in UK law is meaningless, since that was many years ago, and the laws in the two countries have diverged, sometimes significantly, since then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Within the US deliberate falsifications within an advertisement are unlawful under all federal and state law.
The very same applies to many consumer protection laws at both the state and federal levels. Parties generally have the power to create contracts with mutually agreeable terms, but state and federal legislation abounds that declares particular matters of such importance that they may not be waived, and if waived will not be enforced, the contract deemed void/voidable, etc. One minor example from California is that any contract that restricts one from practicing his/her profession upon leaving employment is void as a matter of state policy and firmly ensconced into California's statutes.
It is virtually impossible to read a Supreme Court decision that reference's the Founders' intent without receiving a detailed history lesson on English common law and its relationship to the issue before the court.
The same can be said of the law governing real property. The Rule in Shelly's Case, The Rule Against Perpetuities, livery of seisin, fee simple, easements, etc., etc., etc. are alive and well in the US, as is only too clear to every new law student who is presented with these concepts during their first year of law school.
Contact law, like real property law, in the US and Australia are likely virtually identical, if not fraternal, cousins, with significant departures likely resulting from the fact that there are differences between circumstances in the US and in Australia that have led over time to adjustments necessary to accommodate such differences.
US copyright law was crafted with UK copyright law in mind. While the laws diverged to some degree over time, certain bedrock principles remained, i.e., limited times and formalities. Why are things different now? International harmonization, which was resisted in the US for over 100 years following Berne, because of its incredibly long terms and total absence of formalities. Eventually the two cried "Uncle" in order to avoid placing their respective authors at a marked disadvantage in international circles. To its credit (more or less), the US has modified many of the excesses associated with what it originally had to import and enact, as well as tighten up rather loose language, loopholes, and inconsistencies with the US Constitution. I have no reason to believe that Australia has done anything different.
Bottom line...English common law served as the baseline US law, and retains that vitality even to this day. Thus, your two statements are manifestly in error.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps so, but if so then it's a law that is completely ignored, based on the fact that a huge amount (most?) of advertising contains bald-faced lies or artful deceptions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Still innovation is not about SV only is about everywhere and how some people believe that they can get paid without having to work for it through granted monopolies on ideas, and yes is ideas there was a time where IP laws were coy and shunned, those times are long gone we are again at the monopolistic stage where people don't know what to do and will sell their own to get what they want.
Social inequality is growing in the US something around 50 to 80 million people depend on the government at some level to just get by that is one third of the American total population, production of goods stalled in America the output is the same as it was 40 years ago and it is becoming difficult to find a job by the day and idiots want to create monopolies on ideas? why? rhetorical we all know why, they saw the writings on the wall and are trying to assure that whatever happens in the future they have a laughable claim of ownership on it even if they didn't do the work to get there, that is fucking shameful, but not only that it stops and take away from a unprepared public that doesn't have the tools and means to make it on their own to ever have a change to acquire those things, which will lead to increased attrition, many people just can't pay for others to work for them (producing something), they don't have jobs, they don't know how to reduce their living costs, they don't know how to produce anything but like all living creatures they will try to take from others first until they realized that it is costly and they need to do it themselves and then IP laws will screw them again, at that point they won't care they will do it anyways.
People outsourced the jobs now is time to pay that bill, that meant reducing money circulating by reducing paying jobs inside the market and meant that innovation and creativity moved elsewhere, people who do have ideas people who just buy become morons.
80 million Americans can't survive without handouts from the government, 80 million people turned into slaves by comfort, 80 million people not inventing, not producing not being useful, 80 million mouths to feed that can't do it on their own, 80 million people having straining every single entitlement program the government has, 80 million people who don't someday will realize that the law is what is getting them down and following is causing hardship.
Is bad, make no mistake about it, Katrina showed us what would happen when you have a combination of unable people and a disaster, they panic and start thinking is the end of the world and that they should fend for themselves by harming others, a different story was with the floods in the UK at about the same time, there were no riots, there was no widespread looting, there was people prepared for hardship, which is fantastic, no I am not British, but I did admire how they handled themselves in the face of something horrible, the same in Japan and elsewhere in Asia, but not places like the middle east or latin america.
You see I want those 80 million Americans to learn a profession that they could use, they should be able to make a shoe or copy a design from somebody else so they could sell those on the streets without fear of being jailed, I want them to be able to produce cheap clothes, food, medicines all without having to fearing "infringement" on someones claims of ownership on the idea, I want each and everyone of them to be carpenters copying each others ideas and spreading their knowledge so they all can make a living servicing each other trading with each other, restarting the fucking economy and the creative process.
Instead we get a government that wants to protect their most valuable donors, the same people that put the entire country in the crapper to start with(i.e. bankers, big corporate America).
There are 80 million criminals waiting in line to have a shot at starting something and they can't, they are not represented and have no voice because they have no money to talk for them and that number grows every year.
Or, I am just crazy and talking shite.
CNN: Record number of Americans get government help by Tami Luhby (2011)
huffingtonpost: More Than 47% of Americans "Depend" on Government, Mr. Romney by Peter Dreier (2012)
huffingtonpost: Jim DeMint: '69.5 Million Americans' Are Dependent On Government by Ryan Grim (2013)
The Heritage Foundation: The 2013 Index of Dependence on Government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Those people are not lawyers, they shouldn't need a multi million dollar team to deal with permissions to do something is ridiculous is beyond belief.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sounds to me like they're the ones killing the American economy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
First, I'm assuming that when you say "Silicon Valley," you're using a (to you) derogatory term to refer to the tech industry. I'm also assuming you mean outsourcing to foreign countries (and not outsourcing to American firms), a.k.a. "offshoring;" otherwise the whole "killing the American economy" line is ridiculous.
The jobs the tech industry outsources are the same jobs everyone else outsources - mainly manufacturing jobs. That is very much a concern, but hardly unique to the tech industry.
There are a fair amount of IT jobs being outsourced as well, but they are only the type of IT jobs that don't require the employee to be on-site, which is not many of them. For example, only three percent of computer science jobs are outsourced. Furthermore, this trend has been reversing in recent years.
But regardless of this issue, the notion that the tech industry "doesn't even employ that many people" is pure hogwash. According to the latest BLS data, the tech industry ("Computer and Mathematical Occupations") employed 3,578,220 people. That's not the top employer, certainly, but it's more than plenty of other industries. For example, it employs more than two times the number of people that are employed in the arts industries (1,750,130).
Furthermore, the median income in the tech industry ($76,270) is higher than any other industry. This means that jobs in that industry have more of a positive effect on the economy than jobs in other industries, due to higher taxes paid and greater disposable income.
In fact, if you calculate the contribution to the economy in this way (total employed times the median annual income), the tech industry comes in at #6, contributing about $273 billion, or roughly 6.03% of the total economy. In contrast, the arts industries rank at #18 (out of 21), contributing about $77 billion, or 1.9% of the total economy.
So, no, they're not "killing the American economy." Organizations that attack them are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
LOL
nice spin. Everyone knows Google parks their profits (and most of their employees) overseas to avoid paying taxes. As for the rest of your trickle-down BS, spare us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hey, dipshit:
1. Google is not the tech industry. They're not even "Silicon Valley."
2. These are figures from the BLS, so they're U.S. workers. Not one of those jobs are "parked overseas."
3. I was talking about median annual wages, so the "taxes" I was talking about are workers' payroll taxes, not corporate taxes. These can't be "parked overseas."
As for the rest of your trickle-down BS, spare us.
The "trickle-down BS" (which I also don't believe) involves granting tax breaks to corporations. I am talking about the take-home pay of workers.
No, "trickle-down" would be something like when states grant tax breaks to movie studios, on the theory that they would create local jobs. You're absolutely right that it is BS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, in all fairness, I was defining "industry" as synonymous with occupation, under the assumption that "the tech industry" employs more computer and science workers, and "the media industry" employs more artists, designers, entertainers, and pro sports workers. In other words, I was working with the OMB's SOC classification, rather than NAICS classification.
That's a lot easier to do, because the NAICS major classification system is kind of a mess. For example, "Motion Picture and Sound Recording Industries" is in Sector 51, "Information" - along with software companies, telecommunications, and newspaper publishers - and not in Sector 71, "Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation." Similarly, "Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing" is in Sector 33, "Manufacturing," while "Computer Systems Design" is in Sector 54, "Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services" - along with lawyers.
Just sorting out which of the NAICS classifications are part of "the tech industry" or "the media industries" is not trivial.
I do plan to do this eventually, when I have time and/or interest. If you go to the page for the SOC (occupational) classification, it lists the specific NAICS industries with both the highest levels, and highest concentration, of employment for that occupation. That way, I could find the tech and media occupations, work "backwards" to the industries with the highest number of those jobs, and calculate how much those industries' entire workforce contributes to the total economy. That way, we can include e.g. the office workers.
...But not today, obviously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I love the way that you posted this not only in reply to a comment about *US* workers (so the overseas comment is irrelevant), but you somehow try to pretend that Google is equal to an entire industry. They're not even the only US-based search engine, let alone the entire tech industry.
An AC who's obsessed with Google to point of excluding everybody else and ignoring pertinent facts? How typical... Come back when you've learned how to think, it will help the general conversation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You are basically saying the problem is S.V. isn't corrupt enough to influence D.C. in their favor, when the real problem is that some companies are corrupt enough to influence legislation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris Dodd is the Pope of the Church of Copyrightology
stop right there criminal scum!!! strawman strawman logical fallacy strawman uncreative freeloaders BLABLABLA must have copyright or art will die ad-hom HYPERBOLE~~~!!!! customers are theieves MEGA HYPERBOLE google sucks!!! KIM DOTCOM IS A FATTY FAT ASS FAT BASTARD STEALIN PORRIDGE FROM THE MOUTHS OF ARTISTS KIDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
RABBLE RABBLE pirate mike lives in google minionville strawman logical fallacy CAR ANALOGY downloading a song is CHILD PORN, RAPE and TERRORISM the cake is a lie the cake is a lie the cake is a lie the cake is a lie the cake is a lie the cake is a lie
Post number right now
1:2:3:4:5:(6-7-8-9-0)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chris Dodd is the Pope of the Church of Copyrightology
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chris Dodd is the Pope of the Church of Copyrightology
Like a broken record, you just keep on writing non-sense because you have a hard-on to try to get on Mike's nerves, but make no sense and just end up going nowhere. oh well... so boring and useless!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We are trending towards a world where a dozen mega-corporations cross license each other's massive portfolio of patents and copyrights and then hammer into oblivion any innovative smaller company.
Nothing the public can do about it, I'm afraid. We have been essentially disenfranchised. The only true citizens of 2013 USA are corporate dollars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
-Upton Sinclair
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the thing about big US companies is simply that fact that they are big, and therefore MUST be doing something right (otherwise they would not be big.. right!).
Why no examples ?
Is INTEL a 'big us company'? or "facebook" or "Google", or Apple, or IBM.
Seems you are high on rhetoric but starving on facts, big companies are big because they are successful and productive, small companies are 'always ON THE BRINK', is Google a big US company because they are all warm and fuzzy and sharing ?
"a much bigger issue is that they simply come at the issue from a historical, debunked and no longer relevant understanding of how economics and economic growth works."
why not take a little effort to debunk it then? you know, with some examples and such!
Tell us how economic growth has changed in the last 65 years, with examples such as Microsoft, Google, INTEL and so on please.
Why don't you take that effort, debunk it, with... you know.. FACTS please.
"But the USTR is supporting the 1950s vision of giant monolithic companies deciding what the public wants, and fighting any attempt to actually work with the public."
Is Google a giant monolithic company ? is Microsoft? is IBM, what about REDHAT?
why don't you name some of these 'giant 1950's monoliths' as examples to support your claims?
Are the companies I have mentioned (IBM, MS, INTEL, Apple, Google) NOT contributing to US Trade and in employment and the economy?
IF not how are they not contributing significantly ?
"What's good for a few giant companies isn't what's best for the American public, jobs or the American economy. "
So what is good for INTEL, MS, Google, IBM and a mass of other companies is not good for America? These companies do not employ people? they don't innovate? they don't contribute to the economy? Are they not innovate ?
"What's good for a few giant companies isn't what's best for the American public, jobs or the American economy. "
Mr Masnick, don't you think it would be responsible 'reporting' that if you make statements like that you would support that statement with facts, case studies and examples?
Including examples how big monoliths like Google and how it is bad for the American public or the American economy?
A great deal of rhetoric, no facts, no supporting evidence, no examples, just opinion.
provide us with a list of 'small, innovative companies' that have significantly contributed to US trade and the US economy, and show us how there other companies do not?
Would it be true to say you have provided to examples, and only rhetoric because that's is all you have, or are you simply unable to support your arguments with actual examples and facts and information?
It is the general understanding that you Mr Masnick are employed by Google, one of the "1950's style" monolith style company that you suckle of the teat of.
or is it true that the Microsoft's, Googles, IBM's and INTEL of the world don't employ, don't contribute to innovation or the US economy, trade and employment? if so how?
Facts have value, opinion is only opinion.
is it possible you are right, we will never know you don't give us any examples, or back of your claims with facts.
You probably will be able to easy convince your die hard fans, but I doubt too many others are going to take your opinions seriously, because you've said nothing to support your claims.
" Frankly, the USTR's extreme position makes no sense at all. "
Does your extreme position make any more sense at all? If so, explain why and how please Mr Masnick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
U.S Domestic Exports TOP TEN 2012
2. Transportation Equipment
3. Petroleum and Coal products
4. Machinery, except electrical
5. COMPUTER and Electronic products ****
6. Miscellaneous Manufactured commodities7. Electrical Equipment, Appliances and Components
8. Food and Kindred products
9. Fabricated Metal Products, Nesoi
10. Plastics and rubber products
that's for 2012 not 1950
"
The end result is that the USTR is basically setting a trade agreement with a 1950s manufacturing agenda in a twenty-first century information age world."
until the 'twenty-first century information age world' makes a difference why should it be considered.
again, it is clear from this list why you failed to give real life "INFORMATION" in this information age to support your rhetoric.
Could it be because that INFORMATION does not support your claims and biases?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no, those are all '1950's legacy monoliths' yea right.
"a much bigger issue is that they simply come at the issue from a historical, debunked and no longer relevant understanding of how economics and economic growth works."
so these industries (like food, fuel, computers ect) are 'debunked and no longer relevant (understanding!) of how economics and economic growth works?
when was that 'debunked', how and by who ?
are you going to argue (debunk) why food, chemicals, and computers do not contribute to economic growth, and show us how that works ? (I would like to see that!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
that's great and all, but how about using that information and knowledge and warm and fuzzy sharing to provide us with some concrete examples to support that claim.
While your at it, explain how information and knowledge is any different from 60 years ago, apart for the easier access to the information because of the internet.
Show us some 'economies' and 'trades' that are based on "information and knowledge", feel free to access the vast repository of the internet to gather your supporting facts, and you can also explain how simple things like chemicals, food, computers, machines, metals and so on are 'out dated legacy' companies that have no place in the 21st century?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
short term gain, long term pain?
The short term gain in "innovation" as existing patents and copyright are killed out be followed by an incredibly hard and difficult loss, as companies stop putting money and effort into development new things, and instead get engaged re-using the old stuff that was held under patent before.
What you get is the proverbial race to the bottom, as companies attempt to create the best widget with the most features at the lowest price, and that continues to drive the market until there is no profit left in it. Some companies will work a billion dollar market with a 1% margin, and they will drive everyone out. They will also remove the margins that use to pay for true innovation, replaced by recycling old ideas in a new box, hoping people will pay for it again.
The core of the patent system isn't to lock things up (and it really doesn't do that much), rather it's to encourage investments in things that take years to recoup on. Yes, some things do get locked up, but overall, we are still further ahead as a people because people are actually innovating by moving forward with new ideas, and not just slightly refining or re-coloring some old idea with a lower profit margin.
You have to think further than the end of your nose to see it, and I know that goes against the "me me me now now now" mentality that the internet has brought on. You have to consider if companies would really invest in technology if they know their competitors can copy it 5 minutes after they release it and kill the market before they can recoup their costs.
Short term gain, long term pain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: short term gain, long term pain?
Oh yeah, just like the pop music industry.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: short term gain, long term pain?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: short term gain, long term pain?
Without patents, people will still innovate. What they will not do is share their inventions -- they'll keep everything a secret. That's the problem the patent system is intended to solve.
On the other hand, at least in some fields, the patent system is often actively suppressing innovation quite a lot -- to the extent that it seems worse than not having a patent system at all, whether you're looking long or short term.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: short term gain, long term pain?
It doesn't, though (as I'm sure you know). Patent filings have become purely legal documents, and are not useful in replicating an invention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real reason
They are coming at it from an understanding of what will fill the bank accounts of senators. Make no mistake about it, this is back scratching.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Friend of mine just posted this link, seemed appropriate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The tea party does this everyday.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Ac on Dec 8th, 2013 @ 6:10am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thus, the USTR facilitates their efforts to institutionalize a system of creeping fascism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why Bother
NOTICE I'M SAYING US AND NOT AMERICAN.
I'm sure Canada,Mexico, Central and South America and the Caribbean States would like to work their way up to taking over the title of #1.
I know that India, China, most of SE Asia and Africa will only be paying lip service to any trade pacts they make with the United States and the EU.
As the typical businessman in the PRC is so fond of saying "You roundeyes are just so stupid and gullible."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why Bother
Re being gullible and stupid...only a fool would discount the tenacity and business acumen of sophisticated US businesses that regularly engage in export sales. We are not the worldwide leader in major industries because we are lazy and stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why Bother
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crony Capitalist Era, indeed. It will be an era that will go down in infamy, as one of the biggest economic failures in human history.
Hopefully it will prevent future generations from repeating the same mistakes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Dude, we get it. Just stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Net result: all major manufacturing is done off-shore. The US has little or none left. It would be impossible for us to do what we accomplished in World War II today. We don't have the industrial base to do it. Even BOEING is manufacturing most of it's aircraft parts off-shore and simply assembling them here.
All of this will, of course, go right over the heads of most people, including politicians. They don't think a ground war will happen now. They think the next battle will be fought in cyberspace (SkyNet anyone?). They're wrong.
When the time comes for our foreign owners (you know, all of those foreign "investors" who have bought up a lot of our debt) come to claim their property, they will do so in the form of millions of troops pouring over our borders. Washington will panic and start deploying some of our "earshplittin loudenboomers mit gross hole in der ground und alles kaput" against them, causing them to do the same, and ending the world. Sound fantastic? I sure hope so, but it's all too likely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What borders? Canada? Mexico? They're a long way from being a military threat, for many reasons. It sounds like you're talking about China, but it would be disastrous for China to try to invade us, again for many reasons. They're not stupid and they're not crazy. They're not going to do something that would "end the world" or at best crater both our economy and theirs. Besides which there's no way troop transports carrying millions of troops would ever actually make it to our shores, or anywhere else on the Americas they tried to land. Your scenario is beyond fantastic; it verges on impossible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They are already there. If riots were to start because of NSA, for example, it won't be your cops and armies rounding you up, look into who and how many foreign armies are "training" on US soil right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
OK: "The largest number of foreign personnel come here under the International Military
Education and Training Program (IMET) sponsored by the State Department and executed
by the Department of Defense. For FY1998, DoD estimated that some 8,840 foreign
military personnel from some 116 nations would be hosted throughout the United States
under IMET."
That is far from AC's "millions". And even so, what are you suggesting, that 10,000 (or even 20,000) foreign troops from 116 different countries spread across the US and stationed on US bases and military facilities are going to do... what, exactly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Russians, for example, will be allowed in, they won't have a problem with the border.
Americans don't spy on Americans just like Canada doesn't spy on Canadians(if you believe them), but Canada can spy on Americans and share the info and vice versa. Russians, as per the example, will be firing on Americans, not Americans firing on each other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"If riots were to start because of NSA, for example,..."
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20131206/02345225480/why-ustr-is-workin g-so-hard-to-kill-american-innovation-economy.shtml#c1256
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wasn't. You noticed the question mark, right?
So what makes you think the US would use foreign troops as riot police?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you aren't putting words in my mouth, how does "rounding up" become "US government is going to decide it needs to exterminate its domestic enemies," eh?
If you think, "So what makes you think the US would use foreign troops as riot police?" is the same question with different words, you are whittling away my faith.
Quit trying to insult my intelligence, it is more telling of you than me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, I think I'm done with this conversation, you seem a little touchy over a simple misunderstanding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Government policy
B is for BIG. Big Government, Big Labor, Big Banks, Big Law, Big business
H is for HATE. Your surprised that the bureaucrats are dismissive of your ideas. They are dismissive because they hate you, and think you don't know what's good for you.
O is for Oh Shut Up! They don't want to hear from you, they don't want to have anyone get in the way. And if you're too loud, the IRS or the DOJ will come after you until you learn to defer to your betters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Government policy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This will continue until the US economy collapses, taking the rest of the world with them, and killing most of the large corporations in the process. They seem to have a rather short-sighted view of the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still censoring me Masnick?
I guess I won again Mr Masnick!
At least its a source of amusement, but really your just too easy. (oh I have no argument left, I HAVE TO CENSOR!).
Congrats..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Still censoring me Masnick?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how do you "review" it for censorship?
is your only response to facts censorship Masnick, does it make you feel like a big man ?? (I hope something does), do you want to know what it makes you look like?
It makes you look like someone who cannot engage in a fair argument, who does not like facts to be used against your lies. It makes you look like a fool.
So much for free speech LOL.. not with Masnick the censorship troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WOW even deleting posts now !!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Art of Business
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Art of Business
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Art of Business
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
have to say
In a free market, wouldnt Other nations MAJOR/minor corps JUMP to the USA, at least to distribute their own products??
It would be easier and more controlled..
They would send ORDEREd products to a MAIN distribution location in the USA to be shipped to customers..IT WOULD MAKE TONS of money.
So why havnt they??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: have to say
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: have to say
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Helpful information
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]