Josh Hawley Proves That Republicans Still Don’t Understand Economics

[acptulsa]

And yet the factories return here so they can have a higher profit margin.

Obviously not, if...

No, they are not, they are absorbed by the exporter and the distributor to keep market share.

If they succeed in keeping their share of the market, no new factories need to be built elsewhere.

Or as you put it, with your addled mentality, no factories need to be picked up and "return"ed to another place.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Obviously not, if...



If they succeed in keeping their share of the market, no new factories need to be built elsewhere.

Or as you put it, with your addled mentality, no factories need to be picked up and "return"ed to another place.

LOL

You don't know the difference between market share and profit margin.
I bet you'd increase production of a product turning a loss to try to "make it up on volume".

 

[acptulsa]

You don't know the difference between market share and profit margin.

I don't? I don't?

You're the one talking about new or "return"ed factories. Tell us all how additional factories improve the profit margin of those who already have market share.

Go ahead.

 

[Swordsmyth]

I don't? I don't?

You're the one talking about new or "return"ed factories. Tell us all how additional factories improve the profit margin of those who already have market share.

Go ahead.

If they produce for their market share here they can sell for the same prices without paying the tariffs.

It's that obvious, but you are that innumerate.

 

[acptulsa]

If they produce for their market share here they can sell for the same prices without paying the tariffs.

So you're advocating for Chinese companies to open American factories?

 

[Swordsmyth]

So you're advocating for Chinese companies to open American factories?

China is a special case because they are hostile enemies who should be thrown out of our country in all capacities but a single bare bones embassy.

But otherwise I do support anyone building factories here, especially the American companies that have taken their factories elsewhere.

 

[acptulsa]

But otherwise I do support anyone building factories here, especially the American companies that have taken their factories elsewhere.

So you use tariffs to support the regulatory state instead of easing the burden of American companies trying to do business on America.

Well that's inflationary and hard on small business. Why not just ease the regulatory burden?

 

[Swordsmyth]

So you use tariffs to support the regulatory state instead of easing the burden of American companies trying to do business on America.

Well that's inflationary and hard on small business. Why not just ease the regulatory burden?

LOL

No, you use free trade to support the regulatory state because its costs can be hidden through the use of slave labor imports from countries that absolutely destroy their environments.

You have to do both and both support the other.
But if you were to only do one the tariffs alone would have better effects than the deregulation alone.
Trump is doing both and you oppose him every step of the way.

 

[acptulsa]

No, you use free trade to support the regulatory state because its costs can be hidden through the use of slave labor imports from countries that absolutely destroy their environments.

So you're pro-EPA now?

You have to do both and both support the other.

Obviously not, because Trump is playing with tariffs all the time, but hasn't done one damned thing to rein in OSHA.

But if you were to only do one the tariffs alone would have better effects than the deregulation alone.

Wrong again, as the entirety of the 1920s proved to the entire world.

 

[Swordsmyth]

So you're pro-EPA now?

The EPA is federal and it should not exist, it's a state level issue.
But I do support some level of government outlawing dumping poison in our natural resources etc. just to turn a quick buck, as should any sane person.

Obviously not, because Trump is playing with tariffs all the time, but hasn't done one damned thing to rein in OSHA.

He has been deregulating at a very rapid pace, the EPA being one of the main targets, if he hasn't done OSHA yet he will get to them, DOGE has been assigned to comb over all regulations from every agency.

Wrong again, as the entirety of the 1920s proved to the entire world.

That's a lie told by fed supporters to blame the depression on tariffs instead of the fed.
And it doesn't even respond to the statement because you don't pair it with an example of the opposite, because any time we had little to no regulation and low domestic taxes we also had high tariffs (there's a connection there).

 

[acptulsa]

The EPA is federal and it should not exist, it's a state level issue.
But I do support some level of government outlawing dumping poison in our natural resources etc. just to turn a quick buck, as should any sane person.

Letting the victims of pollution sue the polluters obviously isn't high on your totalitarian agenda.

He has been deregulating at a very rapid pace...

... when it comes to opening up oil leases for campaign donors. In every other area, not so much.

DOGE has been assigned to comb over all regulations from every agency.

But he doesn't bully Congress to take advice from DOGE. In fact, he bullies congressmen like Massie and Hawley who refuse to support bills too big and bountiful to cut anything.

That's a lie told by fed supporters to blame the depression on tariffs instead of the fed.

I'd dearly love to see proof of any Fed supporter saying anything at all about the 1920s...

And it doesn't even respond to the statement because you don't pair it with an example of the opposite, because any time we had little to no regulation and low domestic taxes we also had high tariffs (there's a connection there).

So when is Trump going to get around to the other half of that? And when is he going to put America first, and redirect money from arming Israel to something Americans can use?

 

[Swordsmyth]

Letting the victims of pollution sue the polluters obviously isn't high on your totalitarian agenda.

Lawsuits and courts don't make water and land clean again, and the costs to try to restore them can far exceed what the polluters can pay in damages.
You might as well suggest lawsuits in response to murder.

... when it comes to opening up oil leases for campaign donors. In every other area, not so much.

LOL
Absolute nonsense.
And you are implying that opening up oil leases is a bad thing, just like the leftist you are.

But he doesn't bully Congress to take advice from DOGE. In fact, he bullies congressmen like Massie and Hawley who refuse to support bills too big and bountiful to cut anything.

He does, and most of the regulations can be cut without them.

I'd dearly love to see proof of any Fed supporter saying anything at all about the 1920s...

They claim that Smoot Hawley increasing tariffs afterwards is what caused the depression.
If only we had left tariffs where they were in the 1920s there would have been no depression according to them.

So when is Trump going to get around to the other half of that? And when is he going to put America first, and redirect money from arming Israel to something Americans can use?

He already is, and you keep opposing it all, like when you opposed him giving money back to the taxpayers.

 

[acptulsa]

Lawsuits and courts don't make water and land clean again, and the costs to try to restore them can far exceed what the polluters can pay in damages.

So that's a confirmation that you approve of polluters being immune from lawsuits so long as they're EPA "compliant".

You might as well suggest lawsuits in response to murder.

It has been done.

LOL
Absolute nonsense.

Tell DOGE how Trump has done as much for them as he has done for oil companies.

And you are implying that opening up oil leases is a bad thing, just like the leftist you are.

I implied no such thing. I was merely comparing the quick action here to the snail's pace there. That's just you throwing mud pies because you've got nothing, and because you're childish.

He does

Thanks for confirming that he bullies Republican members of Congress for trying to cut spending.

and most of the regulations can be cut without them.

Without what "them"? DOGE? Congress? How can Congress be reined in when every Republican in it who tries to press for restraint gets the sitting "Republican" president threatening to primary him?

They claim that Smoot Hawley increasing tariffs afterwards is what caused the depression. If only we had left tariffs where they were in the 1920s there would have been no depression according to them.

Smoot Gawley didn't happen in the twenties. Democrats are just like you. None of you want to talk about what Coolidge did that worked. Y'all just want to argue over whether it was Hoover or Roosevelt who fucked it up.

The sad part is, RINO Hoover had more in common with FDR than Coolidge, and so do you.

He already is, and you keep opposing it all, like when you opposed him giving money back to the taxpayers.

I don't oppose it. I've never said Trump shouldn't open up oil leases; you just keep lying about it. Asking why he's doing this conservative thing, but not that other conservative thing that I think would be more helpful, is just what it is, and I can't believe I have to defend it from a self-identified "conservative"'s spin.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Wasn't being sarcastic

If politicians want to give me money, I have never had a problem with that

It's only when they try to take my money I have a problem

Typical Republicans, don't know how to negotiate. I'm holding out for the big money.

Hawley wants my vote? I want one million dollars! And drinks for all my friends!

 

[Occam's Banana]

And yet the factories return here so they can have a higher profit margin.

TIL the purpose of tariffs is not to protect national "sovereignty" or "independence" by increasing the production and/or market share of American producers relative to foreign producers, but rather to safeguard the production and/or profit margins of foreign producers by increasing the number of domestic plants owned by cronyist foreign rent-seekers.

(With "nationalism" like this, who needs "globalism"? )

 

[Swordsmyth]

So that's a confirmation that you approve of polluters being immune from lawsuits so long as they're EPA "compliant".

No, you're just making things up again about a facet we haven't discussed.

It has been done.

It's an additional option, government prosecution has to exist as well.

I implied no such thing. I was merely comparing the quick action here to the snail's pace there. That's just you throwing mud pies because you've got nothing, and because you're childish.

Yes you did,
And you are lying about the pace of action now.

Thanks for confirming that he bullies Republican members of Congress for trying to cut spending.

No, I said he bullies Congress to enact DOGE's findings.

Without what "them"? DOGE? Congress? How can Congress be reined in when every Republican in it who tries to press for restraint gets the sitting "Republican" president threatening to primary him?

I said most regulations can be cut without involving Congress.

Smoot Gawley didn't happen in the twenties. Democrats are just like you. None of you want to talk about what Coolidge did that worked. Y'all just want to argue over whether it was Hoover or Roosevelt who fucked it up.

Right, it happened right after in 1930, so by decrying it they claim the 20s were better.
And one of the good things Coolidge did was maintain tariffs.

The sad part is, RINO Hoover had more in common with FDR than Coolidge, and so do you.

LOL

I don't oppose it. I've never said Trump shouldn't open up oil leases; you just keep lying about it. Asking why he's doing this conservative thing, but not that other conservative thing that I think would be more helpful, is just what it is, and I can't believe I have to defend it from a self-identified "conservative"'s spin.

It's a lie that he's not doing both, and you framed the oil leases as a bad thing done to benefit his cronies, so you can't pretend otherwise.

 

[Swordsmyth]

TIL the purpose of tariffs is not to protect national "sovereignty" or "independence" by increasing the production and/or market share of American producers relative to foreign producers, but rather to safeguard the production and/or profit margins of foreign producers by increasing the number of domestic plants owned by cronyist foreign rent-seekers.

(With "nationalism" like this, who needs "globalism"? )

The purpose is to locate as much production within your jurisdiction as you can so that if foreigners try to blackmail or go to war with you then have control of what you need.
If the necessity arose the plants could be seized and placed under domestic ownership.

Of course homegrown companies are even better, and tariffs support their creation or continuation, and they are the ones bring home much of the production capacity.

 

[acptulsa]

No, I said he bullies Congress to enact DOGE's findings.

Thomas Massie was trying to enact DOGE "findings" when he opposed the BBB.

Yes, that's what he was doing.

You were saying...?

and you framed the oil leases as a bad thing done to benefit his cronies

Are you denying it benefits his cronies? Even though it does that, I never said it was bad. e d You're the one incapable of thinking only in terms of black and white. I'm full well capable of thinking something good can have undesirable aspects, or can be done in a better way. You the one who can't grasp that concept.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Thomas Massie was trying to enact DOGE "findings" when he opposed the BBB.

Yes, that's what he was doing.

You were saying...?

Massie was trying to obstruct the necessary spending for border enforcement and deportations, and was preventing the tax cuts from Trump's last term from being made permanent.

Trump got as much as he could in the Big Bill and Massie knew nothing better was going to pass either house.
Trump is now ramming through rescission bills to codify DOGE's cuts.

Are you denying it benefits his cronies? Even though it does that, I never said it was bad. e d You're the one incapable of thinking only in terms of black and white. I'm full well capable of thinking something good can have undesirable aspects, or can be done in a better way. You the one who can't grasp that concept.

I'm denying that it doesn't benefit the American people and that it is somehow a bad thing.
You are deliberately misbranding it as benefitting cronies because that is a leftist way of claiming it is bad.

 

[acptulsa]

Massie was trying to obstruct the necessary spending for border enforcement and deportations, and was preventing the tax cuts from Trump's last term from being made permanent.

It was an omnibus. It's not only possible to do two things at once, but when you're dealing with an omnibus, you can't help but do multiple things at once.

It was possible to get a bill that did what you say and made the DOGE-recommended cuts too. Maybe you'll say it wasn't, because Democrats and RINOs exist. I say you don't know until you try, and we'll never know because Massie wanted to try and Trump refused to.