|
ComaPrison posted:I can only tell you that there are a lot of people, my family included, that have made out quite well with investing there, and some are in it for the long haul. We're not professional economists or even econ nerds, but we've had some good judgments and some good luck since the late 90s. What more can you expect from laymen? For what it's worth, the businessmen that I've had the opportunity to speak to about this issue seem very willing to bet their company's success on Chinese expansion. Nothing lasts forever, but for right now people with skin in the game are counting on China's success.
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 17:46 |
|
|
ComaPrison posted:At this point in time, I don't think they're too worried about having their technology copied. There may come a day when that will change, but I am not sure it will be anytime soon. On balance, the decision of how strictly to enforce IP laws will depend on the macro-level impact on the economy. If a few Chinese companies get ripped off on a few billion worth of IP, but a few other Chinese companies make off with tens of billions worth by reverse-engineering, we'll probably see a continuation to the very mixed record on enforcement. It's just different for the U.S. because there's a lot more to lose in having tech ripped off by foreigners than there is to gain in stealing other people's tech. I think the point is that if the situation persists there will be no Chinese IP. If you are left twisting in the breeze with nothing but research costs and a bunch of knockoffs, why would you go through the trouble?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2014 13:58
|
|
|
At that point not at all, I was just responding to the general point of the person I quoted - that apparently in China there is an atmosphere of 'no big deal if someone else copies my idea' with the theory being that so long as the copy-cat companies make more than the developer lost it will be a net gain for society. If that is really the situation on the ground then I don't find it logical for there to be developers who are apparently surrounded by people waiting to rip off their idea with lax standards of enforcement. Decided to do a bit of reading on it and apparently China has been moving towards a strong IP law system, and the areas with the best local enforcement of those laws are also where a lot of the best ideas/developments are coming from. Is this a bad assessment of the situation? I didn't mean to step into the thread to share my vast wealth of knowledge, just to point out the immediate flaw in a given post.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2014 13:50
|
|
|
So was he just talking out of his rear end or was there anything to what he's saying?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
Do you suspect it's an outright Ponzi scheme? I'm in an economics program, I will ask my Chinese coworker for suggestions for such websites if no one else has any ideas by tomorrow.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 17:46 |
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Nah it really is pretty bad. Loading up pension funds with overvalued stocks is a great way to cause them to go insolvent or have funding problems which leads to cuts in pensions. It just that the funding problems or insolvency tends to happen years or decades down the road when finally enough people begin to retire but the people who originally caused the mess are safe n' rich cuz' IBGYBG is depressingly effective. Actually I'd say that it is substantially worse. Investing money in Wall Street can be a solid move, in a properly diversified portfolio looking to last for a very long time. At least at the time the market seemed to be doing well and was giving solid returns - it would all blow up, but it always does eventually and when you're talking about 5 trillion dollar lumps of money looking to be providing service over the next century then it can still be a good plan to put some of it into a market and play the long game. It would've been a shitshow, but conceptually I can see how something like Social Security would be a good candidate for diversification into different investments. China pouring funds into a market that is already been intentionally bubbled to the point of bursting is just dumb. You're forcing money into a system to keep it propped up, meaning the price is already above where it should be and the intention is to push it higher. The fundamentals don't change, it just means you're tying even more boats to the sinking ship. Throwing good money after bad, I think the phrase is.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2015 10:42
|
|