> Yes. A $100 counterfeit handbag costs American companies at least $100 in lost profits
What do you think is the reason the economist sounds so dismissive of that idea?
What do you think is the reason the economist sounds so dismissive of that idea?
>“Displaced”? So let me get this right. If my wife buys a Coach handbag for $100, and it’s a counterfeit from China, and she enjoys the handbag, then the “cost” to America is $100? I’m guessing that no actual economists participated in the writing of this government report.
This "economist" (your words) seems to think that the value his hypothetical wife gets from the handbag she or others thinks is a real Gucci offsets the fact that Gucci spent a fortune on their brand and China gets to take a big fat bite out of Gucci's sales because the US isnt willing to stand up to China on trade.
minor: 1. Coach (US), not Gucci (Italy). 2. The author is a legit economist (expert on monetary policy), content from his blog has been posted on HN regularly. He recently posted a series of comments on China. If you're interested check them out at:
https://www.econlib.org/parmesan-cheese-and-sunbucks-coffee/
https://www.econlib.org/how-should-we-think-about-the-theft-...
I didnt like this economist's article. A lot of economists are also political commentators who like to bring toy economic arguments to bear on problems that really aren't captured by economic theory at all. He appears to be one of them.
Please don't, and please don't use HN primarily for political or ideological or national battle, as described elsewhere.