International Trade Treaties were meant to do so earlier but wound up botched by including too many outright special interests forcing deal breakers. Beyond even state level interests into irrelevant "noisy minority" ones like trying to enforce location name branding onto new world which used it for centuries as implicitly "in the style of Parma".
The IP strategy ones often missed that it wasn't stealing - they sent the plans over themselves to save money. Even without illicit third shifts or counterfitting per se they would fundamentally learn enough to compete on knock offs. If the IP was actually precious to them they would have never sent it abroad to manufacture as the percentage saved wouldn't be worth it.
In my opinion what is spoken about IP in general and trade with China beyond "it is cheap/has high industrial concentration advantages" are comfortable lies to ease anxiety of the status quo as opposed to recognizing a nuanced and messy strategic situation of many actors which doesn't fit into a TED talk let alone a sound bite.
I don't think it was missed, in whole or in nuance, by anyone paying attention, but bringing attention to it was met with accusations of racism, and those were partisan.
Not that I'm chill with the Right, either: the "markets can do no wrong" philosophy leads to an enormous blind spot. Greedy optimizers fall apart when sub-components need to coordinate. When an adversary realizes they can just pay the hand to shoot the foot, suddenly the system finds itself with a destroyed industrial base but can't understand what just happened because the explanation lies in the blind spot. That's an even bigger problem than easily co-opted social justice causes.
Comments
It was bipartisan then but in different terms.
International Trade Treaties were meant to do so earlier but wound up botched by including too many outright special interests forcing deal breakers. Beyond even state level interests into irrelevant "noisy minority" ones like trying to enforce location name branding onto new world which used it for centuries as implicitly "in the style of Parma".
The IP strategy ones often missed that it wasn't stealing - they sent the plans over themselves to save money. Even without illicit third shifts or counterfitting per se they would fundamentally learn enough to compete on knock offs. If the IP was actually precious to them they would have never sent it abroad to manufacture as the percentage saved wouldn't be worth it.
In my opinion what is spoken about IP in general and trade with China beyond "it is cheap/has high industrial concentration advantages" are comfortable lies to ease anxiety of the status quo as opposed to recognizing a nuanced and messy strategic situation of many actors which doesn't fit into a TED talk let alone a sound bite.
I don't think it was missed, in whole or in nuance, by anyone paying attention, but bringing attention to it was met with accusations of racism, and those were partisan.
Not that I'm chill with the Right, either: the "markets can do no wrong" philosophy leads to an enormous blind spot. Greedy optimizers fall apart when sub-components need to coordinate. When an adversary realizes they can just pay the hand to shoot the foot, suddenly the system finds itself with a destroyed industrial base but can't understand what just happened because the explanation lies in the blind spot. That's an even bigger problem than easily co-opted social justice causes.