In short: BONK

It probably thought you were Elon Musk.

That tells me that you didn’t listen to enough metal.

That took me way too long.

There’s a few billionaire numptie

Like who?

That would certainly be quite surprising. The expression of Trump being right is flexible enough to be interpreted in various ways.

The only plausible way would be if he achieves some largely meaningless concessions and the media spins it as a win. But if the American electorate gets the idea that the US can get free stuff by throwing a fit, then any agreement is not worth the paper it is written on.

Well, I guess that’s the answer. If Trump achieves anything positive with this, then the reaction with be self-destructive.

Do you have any particular scenario in mind that ends with Trump being vindicated?

I don’t think you have the choice. Products that aren’t imported are made with parts that are imported. In fact, there will be products that have several layers of products tariffs in them, for example cars. Parts are made, assembled into bigger parts and ever bigger parts, and may cross the Mexican or Canadian border each time.

These tariffs are a monumental act of economic self harm. That’s what the stock market is saying. Stocks have (rational) value because you are entitled to a share of future profits. The stock market crashing tells you that the pros expects that a lot of value is not going to be created. Trillions of dollars will not be paid out to stock-owners, and further trillions will not be paid out as wages. The real wealth that is the other side of that money - all these new goods, cars, phones, TVs, dishwashers … - will not exist in the USA.

So, don’t worry about hitting them in the wallet.

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on an American ball sack—for ever.

Maybe watch out for products from Russia and Belarus, as they are not included in the tariffs. This may start a new era of economic cooperation; putting the US in USSR. Ironically, Russia is still hit hard because of oil taking a nosedive.

I read that in an Austrian accent. In my head, of course.

Trademarks have valid uses but they, too, are perverted. Think about luxury goods. The purpose of the brand name is simply to signal that the owner is able to afford the brand. These brands have nothing to do with consumer protection.

I consider them parasitic. Whatever utility someone gets from signalling with an exclusive brand is provided by society, not the company.

The public domain is not just useful but unavoidable and necessary.

You could imagine a world where all available physical matter is owned property. But intellectual property is an arbitrary legal creation. It is not finite.

EG Trademark law. Only the owner of a mark may use it to trade. The mark proclaims who is responsible for a product. If there were no unowned trademarks, you could not start a business without first paying off some owner. This would clearly be economically disastrous. So having unused, potential trademarks is necessary.

EG Patent law. Only the patent owner may use a certain invention; some trick of doing something. The patent is published so that others may learn from it and perhaps come up with other ways of achieving the same end. After (usually) 20 years, everyone may use the invention. Scientific theories, mathematical theorems, and other such things are always public domain.

If patents were broader and/or lasted for longer, you’d eventually not be able to do much business without having to pay off some owner. The owners could basically demand a tax on any kind of economic activity and deny consent for anything that might threaten their status. Progress would grind to a halt. It would be a new kind of feudalism.

So, a public domain is not just useful but absolutely necessary to our civilization.

Anything could be made into intellectual property. For example tax farming in ancient Rome and elsewhere. Monarchs granted special privileges, such as granting the East India Company a monopoly on trade. Or they might grant some person the monopoly on opening coffee houses in the country or a certain city. A title of nobility could be seen as a kind of intellectual property. Such titles were traded in a limited way. Anything that can be allowed or forbidden by the government could be turned into intellectual property.

That’s not correct. There are other forms of IP besides copyright, such as trademarks, patents, or even trade secrets.

What you are saying is somewhat true for US copyrights (and patents) per the copyright clause in the US Constitution. But mind that typically copyrights are owned by the employer of the creator, who may be a writer, even a programmer, photographer, or any other such professional who may not be considered an “artist”.

You would probably not consider yourself an artist for writing comments here, but you get copyright nevertheless.

European copyright has a very different philosophy behind it, which does not consider the public at all. It’s quite harmful to the public, actually.

Generally no, but I wouldn’t rule out that it might be possible in a limited way in very specific circumstances. You wouldn’t be able to stop others from using certain colors.

A specific color scheme might also be used as a trademark.

https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/5057-understanding-how-marginal-taxes-work-its-all-part

Your local tax system probably works the same.

This may be a language issue. “Bill” in this context means the total amount you have to pay. EG A restaurant bill is what you get from a waiter when you want to pay.

FWIW globally, there is the issue of “welfare traps”. Benefits for low income people are usually tied to income (or savings). Once income reaches a threshold, these benefits must be replaced with income. So a higher income may result in a net loss.

I feel that “outgroup dumb” is shitposting but it’s from a real poll.

https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/5057-understanding-how-marginal-taxes-work-its-all-part

Were those scales made by Big Tick? Bullshit, man.

He makes a good argument. I think the European experience supports him.

EU law uses the term “intellectual property”. In fact, “protection of intellectual property” is enshrined as a fundamental right in EU law. When EU politicians demand respect for fundamental rights and values from American tech companies, it implies cracking down on piracy and giving money to copyright owners.

Applying property thinking to data is responsible for many, maybe most, of the problems that make it so hard to build a tech industry in the EU.

To explain what that is: UK Newspapers all printed the same cover page to demand money for copyright owners. They all joined together to make their demand. Newspapers like to market themselves as guardians of democracy. This is what it looks like when they really want something.

They are spreading a lot of deceptive talking points. So here’s some facts.

UK copyright law applies in the UK. If the owners’ demands are met, then British people will have to pay owners around the world to use AI. These international owners try to invoke national solidarity by talking about “protecting British creativity”. But that’s a lie. British creatives would have to pay extra for software like photoshop, while the money would go to owners around the world. For example, Reddit would get money for owning the copyrights to the users’ posts.

Copyright is intellectual property. Like any other property, it is typically owned by the corporation that employed the worker that made it. If the owners are able to lobby their way to some free money, normal workers will not see a cent. Even most authors won’t. The printers, secretaries, janitorial staff, and so on, without whom none of these newspapers would exist, certainly won’t.

These are daily newspapers. Yesterday’s news are proverbially worthless. All the labor that went into producing these newspapers, including the authors, has been paid off. If these corporations get their wish, they will be able to sell their intellectual property a second time. That’s pure profit.

If this was about supporting “British creativity”, then you could use taxes to subsidize, for example, rooms for band practice. You could give the BBC more money for journalism. If you’re worried about job losses, you’d be thinking about unemployment benefits. No one is asking for any of that. It’s all about money for property owners around the world.

Especially the Sun and DM (wasn’t expecting that)

Why not? Because their owners already have enough money? I’m surprised by The Guardian, but that’s class solidarity for you. Owners of the world, united. Explains a lot about the state of the world.