We Guess Conservatives Were Never Conservatives to Begin With

We’re not entirely sure what to make of Taylor Millard’s incoherent, seemingly inherently contradictory brain farting over Trump’s “threat” to slap a tariff on companies leaving the country and trying to sell their goods back to the nation they left for financial convenience’s sake.

Donald Trump’s threat against companies who leave U.S. is statism at its worst

He then goes on to rant and rave at length about the Carrier deal, because nothing offends “True Conservatives™” (and the Chamber of Commerce, but we repeat ourselves) more than jobs not being outsourced to Shanghai or Calcutta, none of which has anything to do whatsoever with tariffs, but cucks will cuck.

Let’s stick with the tariff on companies that decide to run for Calcutta, save a bunch of money by hiring slave labor at 3 ounces of rice/hr, and then sell it back to the U.S. (and the unemployed oafs they left behind who, oddly enough, now can’t buy their product at any price, but nobody ever accused corporate America of being particularly good at seeing past the next fiscal year before they make decisions).

How’s that “statism” and “WrongConservative™?”

Let’s turn it around. How about lowering corporate taxes to lure companies to the U.S., something that Trump has also promised to do? We were under the impression that even “TruCons™” think that’s OK. Is that still OK, or did a new directive go out from the Chamber of Commerce and NRO making that WrongThink™ lately? We’re having trouble keeping up with all the changes the NeverTrumptards make to the catechism every five minutes, depending on who or what they need to drum out of “their” movement.

Just how, pray tell, is this different from raising tariffs (no, they’re not a new thing, we have plenty of them already, but they’re the Good Kind™ that benefit the Chamber of Commerce, so they’re not statist, you filthy Dirt Person Peasant!) in order to keep them from leaving in the first place?

They’re both the exact same incentive. One is a positive one, one is negative. Both are enacted by the state.

But only one of them is “statist?”

Our head hurts.

Not that it matters. We won, you lost. Get over it, cupcakes. Go have a good hug with Kevin “kill the filthy, depraved, useless poor” Williamson.

Thatisall.

11 comments

  1. 1
    angrywebmaster growls and barks:

    You actually still read Hot Air? I saw that post, got about a paragraph into it and moved on. The only thing that keeps me from removing it from my RSS feed is inertia.
    :em07:
    angrywebmaster recently posted..The Best Christmas in 8 yearsMy Profile

  2. 2
    Ironbear growls and barks:

    It’s not just HotAir, Angry. I’ve been seeing this phenomenon going on all over the various “conservative” web haunts for the past year, including in the comment sections of blogs like ATH and elsewhere. Ace of Spades has been a big one ever since it started looking like Trump was going to get the nomination (Bullets aren’t stopping him, sir!) up until Ace suddenly realized that he was fast losing both his credibility and his readership by going nonstop #neverTrump and full on cuck, and did a sudden reversal and became a Trump cheerleader.

    (And now you can’t hardly tell from his posts that he was ever full on TRUMP MUST BE STOPPED AT ALL COSTS FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT’S CONSERVATIVE AND HOLY! Go figger.)

    *shakes head*

    I’ve been watching so-called conservatives collectively losing their shit over Trump for a year and a half now, Misha. I’ve slowly come to the conclusion that apparently, I never had any idea what conservatives actually believed. And then I slowly realized that they don’t know what they actually believe, other than “Dammit, Trump isn’t one!”

    *grin* I’m awful glad I was never a Conservative. I’ve always been plain and simple: primarily an Anti-Leftist. It makes it simple and easy to figure out what I favor:

    1) If it’s something the Left is for, I’m agin’ it.

    2) If it makes the Left froth at the mouths (more than usual), I’m for it.

    3) If the Left thinks it’s horrible, Bad, Evil, Raciss, Sexiss, Misogyniss, double-plus Ungood, then it must be good.

    4) If it involves Leftists dangling from lampposts, I’m really for it.

    I’ll let all of you deep thinkers figure out what is and isn’t Conservative. Me… I find it a lot easier to figure out what’s Anti-Left: just follow the trail of mouth froth, the sounds of esplodey heads, and the screams of outrage and the vapor trails leading to Safe Spaces.

    And if you’re still in doubt as to whether something’s a Leftist, just whip out a piece of chalk and draw a MAGA symbol on the sidewalk and see if it turns into an eldritch horror before your eyes.
    Ironbear recently posted..Sneaking Sally Through The AlleyMy Profile

  3. 3
    fporretto growls and barks:

    All tariffs are state action, and all tariffs are intended, whether directly or indirectly, to benefit the state. Therefore, all tariffs are ultimately statist. Now and then, a tariff is enacted for seemingly “good” reasons, for example to provide an incentive to keep companies in the U.S., as Trump has promised to do. However, the same end could be achieved in other ways: for example, by closing the borders, or by reducing the incentives for the company to emigrate. Which of those more closely resembles the action of a tariff?

    Bear also in mind that a tariff has a “constituency” that’s inherently hostile to the nominal beneficiaries no matter who they are. That constituency is far more interested in the revenue from the tariff, from taxing the beneficiaries, and in increasing its power than in any other consideration, which is why tariffs tend to be perpetuated well beyond any overt rationale for them. Many a tariff has other sinister constituencies as well (e.g., the environmental activist community).

    In the short term, tariffs can forestall business emigration, which is why they’re popular with the communities they target. In the long term, tariffs – especially protective tariffs, rather than frankly revenue-oriented tariffs – create moral hazards that corrupt the business environment and reduce productivity. Hopefully, the Trump Administration’s future economic efforts will go to tax reduction, regulatory reduction, and other actions that will increase the desirability of America’s business environment.
    fporretto recently posted..New Fiction (STICKY; Scroll Down For New Material)My Profile

  4. 4
    angrywebmaster growls and barks:

    fporretto @ #:
    In the short term, tariffs can forestall business emigration, which is why they’re popular with the communities they target. In the long term, tariffs – especially protective tariffs, rather than frankly revenue-oriented tariffs – create moral hazards that corrupt the business environment and reduce productivity. Hopefully, the Trump Administration’s future economic efforts will go to tax reduction, regulatory reduction, and other actions that will increase the desirability of America’s business environment.

    I think we may be seeing a new use for tariffs. In this case, I think Trump will use them to buy time to crush the regulatory state and thereby make it profitable for a company to remain here. There’s also retaliatory tariffs against countries that have been taking advantage of us in all these phony baloney trade deals the Uniparty Elitists have cooked up. We shall see in a few years how it all works out.
    :em03:

    angrywebmaster recently posted..The Best Christmas in 8 yearsMy Profile

  5. 5
    angrywebmaster growls and barks:

    Ironbear @ #:

    And if you’re still in doubt as to whether something’s a Leftist, just whip out a piece of chalk and draw a MAGA symbol on the sidewalk and see if it turns into an eldritch horror before your eyes.

    I could hit the college down the street from me, but they didn’t send out any radical nitwits this year. (All girl college too)
    instead, just follow my link to the Best Christmas in 8 years.
    :em01:
    That should drive a few moonbats nuts.
    :em05:
    angrywebmaster recently posted..The Best Christmas in 8 yearsMy Profile

  6. 6
    Ironbear growls and barks:

    just follow my link to the Best Christmas in 8 years.

    Snerk. That reminds me: it’s almost time to dig out my playlist of “A Very Scary Solstice” Cthulhu carols. :)

    They did a really good job with the Jimmy Stewart/George Baily voice in that video.
    Ironbear recently posted..Sneaking Sally Through The AlleyMy Profile

  7. 7
    Ironbear growls and barks:

    “In the long term, tariffs – especially protective tariffs, rather than frankly revenue-oriented tariffs – create moral hazards that corrupt the business environment and reduce productivity.” – fporretto

    And, in the long run as we’ve seen for the past thirty plus years, unrestricted free tradeism combined with globalist corporatism and negative incentive based legislation creates moral hazards that corrupt both the business environment and the governing environments, and reduce local productivity by making it more profitable for businesses to relocate out of the country.

    And then there’s the moral hazards involved in reverse protectionism in the guise of “free trade”, where we encourage our businesses to leave, but do nothing to discourage other countries from engaging in one sided tariff and trade policies designed to increase their trade rations while decreasing ours.

    And of course the moral hazards inherent in creating an environment where our lawmakers and governing figures are given reason and incentives to believe that there’s more advantage to them in acting as trade pimps for every country except the one that they’re supposed to be representing.

    Seems to be a pick your poison of moral hazards going on here.

    Now and then, a tariff is enacted for seemingly “good” reasons, for example to provide an incentive to keep companies in the U.S., as Trump has promised to do. However, the same end could be achieved in other ways: for example, by closing the borders, or by reducing the incentives for the company to emigrate.” – fporretto

    You may not have noticed, Francis, but as I recall: both Trump’s listed policies, his rhetoric, and his actions so far include all three of those -

    1) Tariffs, both punitive and incentivizing (although I’ll not that to date, it’s been more a threat of punitive tariff than any actual tariff’s in the Ford and Carrier situations.)

    2) A fairly detailed tax policy designed around lowering already punitive corporate taxes and regulations in order to both encourage companies to stay and to develop within the U.S. and to attract new industry.

    And 3) *ahem* Closing the borders. (Does “Build a wall” ring any bells, by any chance?)

    It’s a bit disingenuous to tut tut over the options other than tariffs that Trump could be enacting in lieu of, when those other options are already a part of his fucking campaign platform.

    Apologies for my language, but in my old age I seem to have developed an aversion to having people blow smoke up my ass while telling me it’s breezy.
    Ironbear recently posted..Sneaking Sally Through The AlleyMy Profile

  8. 8
    irish19 growls and barks:

    but nobody ever accused corporate America of being particularly good at seeing past the next fiscal year before they make decisions

    Most businesses don’t seem to look past the end of the current quarter. The next fiscal year is really long term thinking for them.

  9. 9
    Erbo growls and barks:

    Look, if the going rate for assembling air conditioners in Mexico is $3 an hour, no company in their right mind will pay $20 an hour. So you have two choices: make it uneconomic for companies to move their jobs to Mexico, by causing the cost of labor there to reach effective parity with the cost here, or you accept a $3/hour wage here in America to assemble air conditioners.

    (Yes, you may argue it’s better to have the air conditioners assembled in Mexico, but then what do you do for the citizens here that are now out of work and can’t just take jobs as freelance Web designers?)

    The same goes for environmental laws. It costs money to protect the environment here, and if you can save that money by putting your factory someplace where you can spew toxins into the air, water, and ground with impunity, you will. You haven’t really made the cost go down, though; you’ve just shifted it onto the people who live in that environment you’re polluting, without their consent.

    The solution is wage- and environmental-parity tariffs. If the cost of labor is $3/hour in Mexico and $20/hour in the U.S., just figure the number of man-hours required to assemble an air-conditioner, multiply by $17, and that’s your tariff. Similarly, if the ability to pollute there produces a savings of $100 million a year, and the factory there produces 1 million air conditioners a year, the tariff is $100.

    If the company is really moving the factory because “it’s better for their global supply chain” or some such (which is the usual excuse), then they’ll move it, pay the tariff, and we can use that revenue to mitigate the social costs of all the people that are out of work. If the actual reason they’re moving is to exploit lower wages and environmental protections, though, then the factory will either not leave, or will come back, and, while we won’t get the tariff revenue, we also won’t have the social costs of people being out of work to offset!

    (And if Mexico improves its wages and environmental protections to be on par with those in America, the tariff goes away…but then there’s no real point in the factory being moved there, is there?)
    Erbo recently posted..Steven Den Beste: Gone, But Not ForgottenMy Profile

  10. 10
    Emperor Misha I growls and barks:

    fporretto says:

    All tariffs are state action, and all tariffs are intended, whether directly or indirectly, to benefit the state. Therefore, all tariffs are ultimately statist. Now and then, a tariff is enacted for seemingly “good” reasons, for example to provide an incentive to keep companies in the U.S., as Trump has promised to do. However, the same end could be achieved in other ways: for example, by closing the borders, or by reducing the incentives for the company to emigrate. Which of those more closely resembles the action of a tariff?

    It makes more sense that way, Francis, thanks. Lowering corporate taxes removes interference, hence not statist, tariffs introduce interference, thus statist.

    Now, of course, comes the next question: The effects seem the same. Both, on their own, encourage businesses to stay in country, though the guiding principle behind them are different. That being said, I myself will always be in favor of lower taxes as a means towards the end than tariffs as I am a big fan of positive over negative motivation when there’s a choice. And I’ll always be in favor of less intervention from the state, not more.

    But can’t we have both? At least for a while? Granted, as you mention in your post, part of the whole tariff issue is that Trump recognizes it as being a popular idea among his voters, but still. The thing is, the playing field is nowhere near level, it’s been graded in favor of screwing over the nation in favor of the CoC to a ridiculous degree, so adding another dozer to the task doesn’t necessarily seem like a bad idea to me.

    To be sure, tariffs, like taxes, are notoriously difficult to get rid of once introduced, but the thing is that we really need to floor the accelerator at this point to get the economy going again, even if it means starving a few sacred cows for a bit. It’s not like they couldn’t stand to drop a few pounds ;)
    Emperor Misha I recently posted..We Guess Conservatives Were Never Conservatives to Begin WithMy Profile

  11. 11
    BC, Imperial Torturer growls and barks:

    OT Alert!

    I’m gonna leave this right here and let His Imperial Vileness & Viciousness chew it to pieces.

    Obongo’s scrote-licker-extraordinaire, Josh “Taint Sniffer” Earnest on WWII vets not taking too kindly to King Puttsalot using the 75th anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack to, once again, further his America Last agenda…

    Money quote:

    “So yes, there may be some who feel personally embittered, but I’m confident that many will set aside their own personal bitterness, not because they’re personally satisfied by the words of the prime minister but because they recognize how important this moment is for the United States.”

    H/T to Sir George, Imperial Font of Knowledge
    BC, Imperial Torturer recently posted..We Guess Conservatives Were Never Conservatives to Begin WithMy Profile