Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Financial Collapse of 2001 Unwinding -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (3209)	9/2/2019 9:35:32 PM
From: Elroy Jetson	1 Recommendation Recommended By pak73 Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 13819

Unauthorized US printing of Charles Dickens and other UK writers ended with the International Copyright Act of 1891. Just prior in the 1850s there was a lot of global opposition to copyright protection. This was hundreds of years after the Han Dynasty seized Hong Kong in 220 AD, but only fifty years after China ceded Hong Kong to Britain in 1841. . While the first UK patent was issued in 1331, the first Patent Act of the U.S. Congress was naturally not passed in 1790, which happened to coincide with the industrial revolution with steam engines and power looms. But post-Revolutionary War events leading to the US-British War of 1812 and chilly relations following the war interfered with their mutual protection of each other's patents leading to mutual IP theft between the UK and US. If China has secretly declared war the other nations of the world, China's IP theft may be a similar act of war - but China hasn't made their war declaration public. The US required the examination of competing patents in 1836, and this increasing enforcement of patent infringement led to a backlash against patents in many European nations around 1850 leading the Netherlands to abolish Patents in 1869. But by 1910 the regime for the international protection of patents was in force. . Communist Russia and China once created, immediately declared war on international patent protection law, directing their military to steal industrial secrets around the world. This pirate behaviour of these two communist states still remains in effect, which was consistent with these rogue nations being sanctioned from trading with other global economies. We're now in a period of reckoning. Many mistakenly thought China would abandon state-directed industrial theft after becoming a global trading partner, but the level of theft has only increased. Since being a thief is not acceptable behavior for a trading partner, we're naturally experiencing a period of adjustment to deal with unexpected and unacceptable criminal behaviour. This just happens to coincide with horrifically adverse demographic conditions in China's population which will make this period of reckoning more difficult for the Chinese economy. . It's not surprising, living at ground-zero, that TJ sensed this TEOTWAWKI armegeddon for the Chinese economy long before it became obvious to those living in more secure locations.

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (3209)	9/3/2019 8:22:17 PM
From: GPS Info	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13819

Was that OK because as GPS calls 1945 as the Get of free jail card date.. you agree ? When did I say 1945 was "get [out] of free jail card date"? You first claimed that "You are giving out get out of jail free cars for too easily. I think this is a poor interpretation of my comments, and somehow you have jumped from forced annexations to IP theft. I can't equate the two types of theft. The United Nations created the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in 1967 and China joined in 1980. So, I would say that China's IP thefts after 1980 should be condemned in a similar, but not equal fashion as forced annexations. ME: OK, so what is your arbitrary cutoff for forcibly annexing other people? Has that time come yet? TBS: I have none.. I have said many times.. few things in life are black or white.. (binary) Grey is a good colour... If you really have no cutoff then you support or condone forced annexations and IP theft up to the present day. I condemn countries after my cutoff, and there is nothing much that can be done before it. Without a cutoff you can't justifiably condemn anyone or you functionally condemn everyone over all time, and do nothing about it. It's all catch as catch can. That would work well for China, and I guess that would be your point. To me, that is a recipe for World War III and the eventual use of nuclear weapons. On a previous topic: The A-holes like Ms. Clinton tweeting about HK... Maybe addressing the US rampage in shootings might be more appropriate ? Why can't she do both? Are you against free speech like the CCP? Is she less informed that anyone on SI? Could she have picked up any information as Secretary of State regarding China and Hong Kong that you or I don't possess? Does she have any more practical experience in international relations than you or anyone else on SI?