What Does A Pig Farmer Know About Intellectual Property Theft

[Ricky LIbtardo]

It's Hillaryous Trump has driven the batshit crazy libtardos to lock arms with Communist China.

China agreed when they joined the World Trade Organization to the policy of not forcing companies to give up their intellectual property. They have never honored the policy and it costs American companies as much as $200 Billion a year.

Now the libtardos are defending China and dragging out farmers to point out who will get hurt by Trump's tariffs. We lose $500 Billion a year on top of the intellectual property theft. Now the farmers who liberals hate are the new pawns of the left. Those dirty deplorables they hate in fly over country.

So here's what we know. Intellectual property can be leveraged and over time accounts for hundreds of billions of dollars of our wealth. When we lose this advantage we lose millions of jobs. Loss of national security.

LIbtardos love giving corn growers subsidies so just give the money from tariffs on Chinese products to the pig farmers and keep our intellectual property which we can leverage.

You can't leverage a pig.

What's not to like about cheaper Bacon, Lettuce, and Tomato sandwiches?

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Now the libtardos are defending China

Who? Where?

 

[Ricky LIbtardo]

Now the libtardos are defending China

Who? Where?

Fake News. I watch the enemy so I know what they're lying about.

 

[sparky]

Even a pig is smart enough to know liberals aren't to blame for Trump's trade war w/China


~S~

 

[BULLDOG]

It's Hillaryous Trump has driven the batshit crazy libtardos to lock arms with Communist China.

China agreed when they joined the World Trade Organization to the policy of not forcing companies to give up their intellectual property. They have never honored the policy and it costs American companies as much as $200 Billion a year.

Now the libtardos are defending China and dragging out farmers to point out who will get hurt by Trump's tariffs. We lose $500 Billion a year on top of the intellectual property theft. Now the farmers who liberals hate are the new pawns of the left. Those dirty deplorables they hate in fly over country.

So here's what we know. Intellectual property can be leveraged and over time accounts for hundreds of billions of dollars of our wealth. When we lose this advantage we lose millions of jobs. Loss of national security.

LIbtardos love giving corn growers subsidies so just give the money from tariffs on Chinese products to the pig farmers and keep our intellectual property which we can leverage.

You can't leverage a pig.

What's not to like about cheaper Bacon, Lettuce, and Tomato sandwiches?

Got it. You don't give a shit about farmers getting hurt as long as Trump gets to pretend to be a tough guy. I suspected that anyway.

 

[Aldo Raine]

Even a pig is smart enough to know liberals aren't to blame for Trump's trade war w/China


~S~

Trumptards on the other hand, not so much!

 

[Marion Morrison]

It's Hillaryous Trump has driven the batshit crazy libtardos to lock arms with Communist China.

China agreed when they joined the World Trade Organization to the policy of not forcing companies to give up their intellectual property. They have never honored the policy and it costs American companies as much as $200 Billion a year.

Now the libtardos are defending China and dragging out farmers to point out who will get hurt by Trump's tariffs. We lose $500 Billion a year on top of the intellectual property theft. Now the farmers who liberals hate are the new pawns of the left. Those dirty deplorables they hate in fly over country.

So here's what we know. Intellectual property can be leveraged and over time accounts for hundreds of billions of dollars of our wealth. When we lose this advantage we lose millions of jobs. Loss of national security.

LIbtardos love giving corn growers subsidies so just give the money from tariffs on Chinese products to the pig farmers and keep our intellectual property which we can leverage.

You can't leverage a pig.

What's not to like about cheaper Bacon, Lettuce, and Tomato sandwiches?

 

[sparky]

Did you know pigs drink beer?

In fact, one can train them to hold a bottle in their snout,and tip it up

Pigs are fairly smart animals , and like most have a sense of justice

One really shouldn't equate pigs or those that keep company w/pigs as lacking , in fact there's many a sort out there that could learn a thing or two from them

~S~

 

[Marion Morrison]

Did you know pigs drink beer?

In fact, one can train them to hold a bottle in their snout,and tip it up

Pigs are fairly smart animals , and like most have a sense of justice

One really shouldn't equate pigs or those that keep company w/pigs as lacking , in fact there's many a sort out there that could learn a thing or two from them

~S~

Did you know pigs can eat people too?

 

[usmbguest5318]

It's Hillaryous Trump has driven the batshit crazy libtardos to lock arms with Communist China.

China agreed when they joined the World Trade Organization to the policy of not forcing companies to give up their intellectual property. They have never honored the policy and it costs American companies as much as $200 Billion a year.

Now the libtardos are defending China and dragging out farmers to point out who will get hurt by Trump's tariffs. We lose $500 Billion a year on top of the intellectual property theft. Now the farmers who liberals hate are the new pawns of the left. Those dirty deplorables they hate in fly over country.

So here's what we know. Intellectual property can be leveraged and over time accounts for hundreds of billions of dollars of our wealth. When we lose this advantage we lose millions of jobs. Loss of national security.

LIbtardos love giving corn growers subsidies so just give the money from tariffs on Chinese products to the pig farmers and keep our intellectual property which we can leverage.

You can't leverage a pig.

What's not to like about cheaper Bacon, Lettuce, and Tomato sandwiches?

??? What? Can you present your case objectively and without all the adjectival/judgmental "baggage?"

• "libtardos are defending China"? -- What? What are the defenses you've encountered?
• "dragging out farmers to point out who will get hurt by Trump's tariffs"? -- What does that mean? Can you were to simply describe what specific actions and identify the situational factors you have in mind?
• "LIbtardos love giving corn growers subsidies" -- Do they? AFAIK, corn subsidies are opposed and supported by both conservatives and liberals. (See: Farm Subsidies Persist And Grow, Despite Talk Of Reform) My point is that neither support nor opposition to corn (and other farm subsidies) is definitively amongst any given political predilection's pet prefernces.
  
  The problem with farm subsidies is that politicians support or oppose them based not on the empirical economic merits/demerits of the subsidies, but rather on the subsidies' appeal to the politician's constituency. Such emotionalism may have been fitting prior to the 1970s, but here in the 21st century, the positive economics of very basic macroeconomic tools like subsidies, tariffs, and quotas are very, very well understood. There's simply no case for emotionalism -- i.e., making such decisions on a political basis rather than on a purely empirical basis -- that pervades such topics.
  
  At the very least, if one is going to implement such well understood economic policies, one needs to articulate something to the effect of "We/I understand that this tariff/subsidy/quota will adversely affect 'this, that, and the other;" however, I/we think it appropriate to do so because..." That degree of frankness, of course, is unheard of from politicians. To hear conservative and liberal pols, one who trusts them at their word must necessarily conclude there is no downside, or no material downside, to whatever the pol advocates.

Indeed, it's not even clear why you've honed in on pig farmers to assert a case against Chinese intellectual property theft Are you aware that Smithfield Foods, the world's largest pork products producer was purchased by Henan Luohe Shuanghui Industry Group Limited Liability Company (HLS). You don't have to like that HLS purchased Smithfield, but the fact is it did. Accordingly, HLS purchased whatever intellectual property Smithfield has developed over the years.

The Chinese government's non-acceptance and non-enforcement of the concepts of intellectual property extant in Western democracies is certainly something about which to rail. Having sold professional services to Chinese firms, I cannot tell you how often potential clients stated unabashedly that they wanted my team to implement for them the exact same solution we implemented at a firm that struck the Chinese firm's managers as being the archetypal one for the processes and strategies they wanted to deploy. Quite literally, they'd review the quals we provided and tell us, "We want you to implement for us what you implemented for 'such and such.' "

The first time I heard that, I told the prospective client that, of course, we'll manage their transformation and that we'd do it by evaluating their operations, corporate culture, business needs, business strategies, etc. and provide them with with a solution that fits them. That's what we do for all clients. That broad verisimilitude is not what some of my Chinese prospective clients had in mind.

They said, that's not what they wanted. They were defining the solution delivered at "so and so" as the solution they would implement and, in turn, pay us to deliver that same solution -- blueprint, approach, policies, processes, etc. -- for them. They were seeking what amounted to a literal copy-and-paste of a business transformation performed for another firm.

I had to withdraw from the bidding on quite a few of those projects because the clients who'd initially purchased our services considered them to be critical success factors, thus they paid a premium to receive from us a greater-than-standard degree of confidentiality. On others I was able to help the Chinese execs understand that a copy-paste would not be a viable approach for them because of myriad factors that distinguish their and the competing firms in the U.S. and Europe they sought to emulate.

For me, it came down to integrity, which is a key factor in everything with me. I don't care how much money is involved, I'm not going to risk my and my firm's reputation by agreeing to do anything that, based on decades of professional experience and formal training, I think will be a failure in the end because it was ill conceived at the start. And I'm damn sure not going to breach a contractual confidentiality agreement for that too puts me and my firm at risk. In my business, one (an individual or a firm) cannot thrive if one is not thoroughly trustworthy.

 

[sparky]

Pigs'll eat anything.......~S~

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Even a pig is smart enough to know liberals aren't to blame for Trump's trade war w/China


~S~

You're right. Previous administrations and Congress are.

Thanks for playing Jeopardy but you lose.
I do have a consolation prize specifically made for libwits.

 

[sparky]

It's Hillaryous Trump has driven the batshit crazy libtardos to lock arms with Communist China.

China agreed when they joined the World Trade Organization to the policy of not forcing companies to give up their intellectual property. They have never honored the policy and it costs American companies as much as $200 Billion a year.

Now the libtardos are defending China and dragging out farmers to point out who will get hurt by Trump's tariffs. We lose $500 Billion a year on top of the intellectual property theft. Now the farmers who liberals hate are the new pawns of the left. Those dirty deplorables they hate in fly over country.

So here's what we know. Intellectual property can be leveraged and over time accounts for hundreds of billions of dollars of our wealth. When we lose this advantage we lose millions of jobs. Loss of national security.

LIbtardos love giving corn growers subsidies so just give the money from tariffs on Chinese products to the pig farmers and keep our intellectual property which we can leverage.

You can't leverage a pig.

What's not to like about cheaper Bacon, Lettuce, and Tomato sandwiches?

??? What? Can you present your case objectively and without all the adjectival/judgmental "baggage?"

• "libtardos are defending China"? -- What? What are the defenses you've encountered?
• "dragging out farmers to point out who will get hurt by Trump's tariffs"? -- What does that mean? Can you were to simply describe what specific actions and identify the situational factors you have in mind?
• "LIbtardos love giving corn growers subsidies" -- Do they? AFAIK, corn subsidies are opposed and supported by both conservatives and liberals. (See: Farm Subsidies Persist And Grow, Despite Talk Of Reform) My point is that neither support nor opposition to corn (and other farm subsidies) is definitively amongst any given political predilection's pet prefernces.
  
  The problem with farm subsidies is that politicians support or oppose them based not on the empirical economic merits/demerits of the subsidies, but rather on the subsidies' appeal to the politician's constituency. Such emotionalism may have been fitting prior to the 1970s, but here in the 21st century, the positive economics of very basic macroeconomic tools like subsidies, tariffs, and quotas are very, very well understood. There's simply no case for emotionalism -- i.e., making such decisions on a political basis rather than on a purely empirical basis -- that pervades such topics.
  
  At the very least, if one is going to implement such well understood economic policies, one needs to articulate something to the effect of "We/I understand that this tariff/subsidy/quota will adversely affect 'this, that, and the other;" however, I/we think it appropriate to do so because..." That degree of frankness, of course, is unheard of from politicians. To hear conservative and liberal pols, one who trust them at their word must necessarily conclude there is no downside, or no material downside, to whatever the pol advocates.

Indeed, it's not even clear why you've honed in on pig farmers to assert a case against Chinese intellectual property theft Are you aware that Smithfield Foods, the world's largest pork products producer was purchased by Henan Luohe Shuanghui Industry Group Limited Liability Company (HLS). You don't have to like that HLS purchased Smithfield, but the fact is it did. Accordingly, HLS purchased whatever intellectual property Smithfield has developed over the years.

The Chinese's non-acceptance and non-enforcement of the concepts of intellectual property extant in Western democracies is certainly something about which to rail. Having sold professional services to Chinese firms, I cannot tell you how often potential clients stated unabashedly that they wanted my team to implement for them the exact same solution we implemented at a firm that struck the Chinese firm's managers as being the archetypal one for the processes and strategies they wanted to deploy. Quite literally, they'd review the quals we provided and tell us, we want you to implement for us what you implemented for "such and such."

The first time I heard that, I told the prospective client that, of course, we'll manage your transformation and that we'd do it by evaluating their operations, corporate culture, business needs, business strategies, etc. and provide them with with a solution that fits them. They said, that's not what they wanted. They were defining the solution delivered at "so and so" as the solution they would implement and, in turn, pay us to deliver that same solution -- blueprint, approach, policies, processes, etc. -- for them. They were seeking what amounted to a literal copy-and-paste of a business transformation performed for another firm.

I had to withdraw from the bidding on quite a few of those projects because the clients who'd initially purchased our services considered them to be critical success factors, thus they paid a premium to receive from us a greater-than-standard degree of confidentiality. On others I was able to help the Chinese execs understand that a copy-paste would not be a viable approach for them because of myriad factors that distinguish their and the competing firms in the U.S. and Europe they sought to emulate.

For me, it came down to integrity, which is a key factor in everything with me. I don't care how much money is involved, I'm not going to risk my and my firm's reputation by agreeing to do anything that, based on decades of professional experience and formal training, I think will be a failure in the end because it was ill conceived at the start. And I'm damn sure not going to breach a contractual confidentiality agreement for that too puts me and my firm at risk. In my business, one (an individual or a firm) cannot thrive if one is not thoroughly trustworthy.

So pork fried rice is off the menu then?

~S~

 

[usmbguest5318]

It's Hillaryous Trump has driven the batshit crazy libtardos to lock arms with Communist China.

China agreed when they joined the World Trade Organization to the policy of not forcing companies to give up their intellectual property. They have never honored the policy and it costs American companies as much as $200 Billion a year.

Now the libtardos are defending China and dragging out farmers to point out who will get hurt by Trump's tariffs. We lose $500 Billion a year on top of the intellectual property theft. Now the farmers who liberals hate are the new pawns of the left. Those dirty deplorables they hate in fly over country.

So here's what we know. Intellectual property can be leveraged and over time accounts for hundreds of billions of dollars of our wealth. When we lose this advantage we lose millions of jobs. Loss of national security.

LIbtardos love giving corn growers subsidies so just give the money from tariffs on Chinese products to the pig farmers and keep our intellectual property which we can leverage.

You can't leverage a pig.

What's not to like about cheaper Bacon, Lettuce, and Tomato sandwiches?

??? What? Can you present your case objectively and without all the adjectival/judgmental "baggage?"

• "libtardos are defending China"? -- What? What are the defenses you've encountered?
• "dragging out farmers to point out who will get hurt by Trump's tariffs"? -- What does that mean? Can you were to simply describe what specific actions and identify the situational factors you have in mind?
• "LIbtardos love giving corn growers subsidies" -- Do they? AFAIK, corn subsidies are opposed and supported by both conservatives and liberals. (See: Farm Subsidies Persist And Grow, Despite Talk Of Reform) My point is that neither support nor opposition to corn (and other farm subsidies) is definitively amongst any given political predilection's pet prefernces.
  
  The problem with farm subsidies is that politicians support or oppose them based not on the empirical economic merits/demerits of the subsidies, but rather on the subsidies' appeal to the politician's constituency. Such emotionalism may have been fitting prior to the 1970s, but here in the 21st century, the positive economics of very basic macroeconomic tools like subsidies, tariffs, and quotas are very, very well understood. There's simply no case for emotionalism -- i.e., making such decisions on a political basis rather than on a purely empirical basis -- that pervades such topics.
  
  At the very least, if one is going to implement such well understood economic policies, one needs to articulate something to the effect of "We/I understand that this tariff/subsidy/quota will adversely affect 'this, that, and the other;" however, I/we think it appropriate to do so because..." That degree of frankness, of course, is unheard of from politicians. To hear conservative and liberal pols, one who trust them at their word must necessarily conclude there is no downside, or no material downside, to whatever the pol advocates.

Indeed, it's not even clear why you've honed in on pig farmers to assert a case against Chinese intellectual property theft Are you aware that Smithfield Foods, the world's largest pork products producer was purchased by Henan Luohe Shuanghui Industry Group Limited Liability Company (HLS). You don't have to like that HLS purchased Smithfield, but the fact is it did. Accordingly, HLS purchased whatever intellectual property Smithfield has developed over the years.

The Chinese's non-acceptance and non-enforcement of the concepts of intellectual property extant in Western democracies is certainly something about which to rail. Having sold professional services to Chinese firms, I cannot tell you how often potential clients stated unabashedly that they wanted my team to implement for them the exact same solution we implemented at a firm that struck the Chinese firm's managers as being the archetypal one for the processes and strategies they wanted to deploy. Quite literally, they'd review the quals we provided and tell us, we want you to implement for us what you implemented for "such and such."

The first time I heard that, I told the prospective client that, of course, we'll manage your transformation and that we'd do it by evaluating their operations, corporate culture, business needs, business strategies, etc. and provide them with with a solution that fits them. They said, that's not what they wanted. They were defining the solution delivered at "so and so" as the solution they would implement and, in turn, pay us to deliver that same solution -- blueprint, approach, policies, processes, etc. -- for them. They were seeking what amounted to a literal copy-and-paste of a business transformation performed for another firm.

I had to withdraw from the bidding on quite a few of those projects because the clients who'd initially purchased our services considered them to be critical success factors, thus they paid a premium to receive from us a greater-than-standard degree of confidentiality. On others I was able to help the Chinese execs understand that a copy-paste would not be a viable approach for them because of myriad factors that distinguish their and the competing firms in the U.S. and Europe they sought to emulate.

For me, it came down to integrity, which is a key factor in everything with me. I don't care how much money is involved, I'm not going to risk my and my firm's reputation by agreeing to do anything that, based on decades of professional experience and formal training, I think will be a failure in the end because it was ill conceived at the start. And I'm damn sure not going to breach a contractual confidentiality agreement for that too puts me and my firm at risk. In my business, one (an individual or a firm) cannot thrive if one is not thoroughly trustworthy.

So pork fried rice is off the menu then?

~S~

Does the "~S~" stand for "Sparky" or "sarcasm?"

 

[sparky]

Well whatever associated biz you may be in , i do applaud your ethics Xelor

However you may find yourself less applicable to the globalist club

~S~

 

[whitehall]

President Trump plays hypocrite libs like a freaking violin. Even the crazy angry lefties should remember that it wasn't so long ago when corporations were the enemy. Now they worry about profit margins and when Trump makes a negative comment about the gigantic corporate entity "Amazon" the crazy hypocrite left gets hysterical.

 

[sparky]

Time to raise that flag again...

 

[Ricky LIbtardo]

Even a pig is smart enough to know liberals aren't to blame for Trump's trade war w/China


~S~

Libtarded lieberal Globalists don't care if China steals our intellectual property and now we have go to war to keep it from now on. They need to be kicked out of the World Trade Organization tomorrow.

Now fetch me a BLT, pronto.

 

[sparky]

Libtarded lieberal Globalists don't care if China steals our intellectual property and now we have go to war to keep it from now on. They need to be kicked out of the World Trade Organization tomorrow.

Check out the WTO's SDR (special drawing rights) ,and get back to me Mr libberby libeatrdy liberally lib a bib bib....

Now fetch me a BLT, pronto.

Chinese bacon, Mexican lettuce, Korean Tomato, heavy on the nepotism......?

~S~

 

[sparky]

screw it, i'll do it myself>



~S~