US Politics: the Moore things change...

[KingintheNorth4]

5 minutes ago, Mexal said:

 

This fight isn't over yet. Advocacy groups have promised to sue the FCC over this. States and cities will more than likey face more pressure to provide high speed open internet as a utility. Lawmakers can still make laws to reinstate net neutrality. And we can hurt them with our wallets most of all, by putting the pressure on internet providers.

[Hereward]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

So yes on silly idea? I don’t believe supply can create demand unless the demand already exists.

That's bad news for Apple, Netflix, Microsoft and, I suppose, the entire modern economy.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, Hereward said:

That's bad news for Apple, Netflix, Microsoft and, I suppose, the entire modern economy.

Lolz. Creating something absent of demand is begging for failure, by and large.

Also, Rubio just came out as a no vote on the tax bill, but I’m sure it will be changed to meet his demands.

[Hereward]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Lolz. Creating something absent of demand is begging for failure, by and large.

Well, sure, most people who create something people don't know they want will fail. But pretty much every modern development, from the motor car to computers, to smart phones, to subscription TV services, was the creation of something people couldn't imagine, and therefore couldn't demand. So, the existence of the modern economy is a huge real life example of why the statement that " supply cannot create demand unless the demand already exists" is utterly incorrect.

Say's Law has been proven wrong as far as money supply is concerned, but your statement goes way beyond that.

[Fez]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Lolz. Creating something absent of demand is begging for failure, by and large.

Also, Rubio just came out as a no vote on the tax bill, but I’m sure it will be changed to meet his demands.

His main demand, expanding the child tax credit, would at least make the bill slightly better. The bigger potential concern for McConnell is whether any other Republicans make the same realization that Rubio did from watching Collins, Murkowski, and Johnson, which is that individual GOP senators still have a ton of leverage to get changes made (even more so once Jones is seated). That could potentially stall out the bill for weeks/months.

[Sivin]

Can I just say that I love my fucking country?

And bra eating photos have been taken, I just have to figure out how to put them on the computer machine.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, Hereward said:

Well, sure, most people who create something people don't know they want will fail. But pretty much every modern development, from the motor car to computers, to smart phones, to subscription TV services, was the creation of something people couldn't imagine, and therefore couldn't demand. So, the existence of the modern economy is a huge real life example of why the statement that " supply cannot create demand unless the demand already exists" is utterly incorrect.

Say's Law has been proven wrong as far as money supply is concerned, but your statement goes way beyond that.

Random individuals might not have been able to imagine these inventions, but the people that did created them in part, and often in large part, because they believed there would be demand for them. That’s why demand is the vital part of the equation, not production or supply, which makes Say’s Law an incorrect assumption in many cases.

13 minutes ago, Fez said:

His main demand, expanding the child tax credit, would at least make the bill slightly better. The bigger potential concern for McConnell is whether any other Republicans make the same realization that Rubio did from watching Collins, Murkowski, and Johnson, which is that individual GOP senators still have a ton of leverage to get changes made (even more so once Jones is seated). That could potentially stall out the bill for weeks/months.

Yup. That’s why I guessed that the corporate rate was cut so low. Every percentage point they add back is $100b over 10 years, so that provides a lot of wiggle room to meet wavering senators’ demands. And the House will just have to eat it. I doubt this thing will get dragged on for week or months though. They only have so many working days left in the calendar year, and this needle will become even harder to thread once Jones arrives at the beginning of January.

[Sivin]

Wouldn't it be politically expedient for Marco Rubio to be a firm no on Taxes?

He could really fuck Trump

[Hereward]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Random individuals might not have been able to imagine these inventions, but the people that did created them in part, and often in large part, because they believed there would be demand for them. That’s why demand is the vital part of the equation, not production or supply, which makes Say’s Law an incorrect assumption in many cases.

Well of course they believed that people would want them, once created. But that's not what supply and demand mean. The supply led to the demand and not vice versa. Surely that's beyond doubt. Otherwise, you're just redefining terms to support your statement, rather than just admitting you were wrong/hyperbolic. That's a bit Fake News.

[aceluby]

21 minutes ago, Hereward said:

Well, sure, most people who create something people don't know they want will fail. But pretty much every modern development, from the motor car to computers, to smart phones, to subscription TV services, was the creation of something people couldn't imagine, and therefore couldn't demand. So, the existence of the modern economy is a huge real life example of why the statement that " supply cannot create demand unless the demand already exists" is utterly incorrect.

Say's Law has been proven wrong as far as money supply is concerned, but your statement goes way beyond that.

The demand for all of those things absolutely existed before the products did.

Demand for cars didn't exist, but demand for faster travel did.  That's why there was a lot of effort put into faster horses at the same time.

Demand for computers didn't exist, but demand for something to do calculations and automation did.

Demand for smartphones didn't exist, but demand for cell phones, GPS, mobile gaming, etc did...

That statement is absolutely 100% correct.  Supply never creates demand.

[OldGimletEye]

On 12/14/2017 at 0:32 PM, Tywin et al. said:

So yes on silly idea? I don’t believe supply can create demand unless the demand already exists.

Sorry, I misread you last statement as I was responding to it. I was typing it while trying to do something else. It turns out that I'm terrible at multitasking.

But, yeah, you are correct. Anyway yeah, the Republicans and Trump saying, "hey guys ya wanna do some infrastructure now?" merits a laugh in their face.

And even if I thought the plan was a good one, I'd be careful at this point of giving Trump anything that would tend to legitimize him or give him a legislative victory. After watching years of Republican buffoonery, culminating in the Orange Clown in the white house, I'm more of mind just to take the Republican Party out to the woodshed.

[aceluby]

1 minute ago, Hereward said:

Well of course they believed that people would want them, once created. But that's not what supply and demand mean. The supply led to the demand and not vice versa. Surely that's beyond doubt. Otherwise, you're just redefining terms to support your statement, rather than just admitting you were wrong/hyperbolic. That's a bit Fake News.

They believed it because there was a demand for the result the products achieved that existed before the products.  Fake News?  Hardly.  It's common sense.

[LongRider]

Rumors swirling on Political and elsewhere that Paul Ryan will retire at the end of his term in 2018.   On my phone so can't post link. 

[James Arryn]

5 minutes ago, WinterFox said:

Wouldn't it be politically expedient for Marco Rubio to be a firm no on Taxes?

He could really fuck Trump

Current GOP policy appears to be ‘make tsk tsk noises each time he does something particularly vile, wait a bit for other issues to take center stage then fall in line and support him on w/e’. Have you seen the Rosenstein testimony? They are fully on board the Trumpmobile. Rubio might try to leverage some cred out of this for a bit, like McCain did, but will ultimately get on board so long as the GOP’s fate is tied to Trump. Which it is for the next few years. Don’t expect any Jimmy Stewart movies is my advice. 

[Maithanet]

2 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Current GOP policy appears to be ‘make tsk tsk noises each time he does something particularly vile, then fall in line and support him’. Have you seen the Rosenstein testimony? They are fully on board the Trumpmobile. Rubio might try to leverage some cred out of this for a bit, like McCain did, but will ultimately get on board so long as the GOP’s fate is tied to Trump. Which it is for the next few years. Don’t expect any Jimmy Stewart movies is my advice. 

I wouldn't go quite that far.  Rubio has been mostly a team player as a Senator - occasionally he makes noises about individual preferences, but he always comes around when his vote is needed.  Nothing about him indicates he wants to be the decisive vote against the tax cut like McCain was for health care. 

However, he can recognize that he has a lot of leverage.  This bill needs to be passed quickly, and Republicans can't afford to let it fail.  I think Rubio is probably bluffing about voting no, but Republicans might rather just throw him some small ($50-100 billion) concession, rather than risk finding out.    Hell, it might even help them if it gives the impression that Republicans are negotiating in good faith (even if those negotiations are only between Republicans). 

[Rippounet]

42 minutes ago, Hereward said:

Well, sure, most people who create something people don't know they want will fail. But pretty much every modern development, from the motor car to computers, to smart phones, to subscription TV services, was the creation of something people couldn't imagine,

That is completely untrue.

For starters, even when you can't imagine a specific product, there still may be demand for its effects. Typically, even if motor cars were hard to imagine a millenium or two ago the improvement of transportation was always pretty high on the to-do list of humanity. In a similar way, some historians argue that the abacus was in fact the first computer. Subscription TV services are just the logical endpoint of decades (at least) of evolution for entertainment. As for smartphones, the only thing truly remarkable about them is that they have so many functions, most of which have been around for a very long time (imho taking a picture is just the very modern version of cave painting).

You'll find it very difficult to name a product that did not exist in some form or the other at least a century ago. Most of the stuff we have around us is just the modern version of what existed many centuries ago.
There are exceptions of course, but you won't find that many. In fact, I'd be curious to see you try (as a thought experiment).

And of course, the closer you get to the date of an invention and the more demand you will see for it. Smartphones or tablets were imagined more than fifty years ago for instance.

Historical perspective and literary knowledge (of science-fiction that is) show that imagination is a very powerful thing.
Of course, history also tells us that demand does not automatically translate into immediate commercial success (the tablet being a case in point).

 

Edit: wow, I've really been ninja'd on this one. ^^

[James Arryn]

8 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I wouldn't go quite that far.  Rubio has been mostly a team player as a Senator - occasionally he makes noises about individual preferences, but he always comes around when his vote is needed.  Nothing about him indicates he wants to be the decisive vote against the tax cut like McCain was for health care. 

However, he can recognize that he has a lot of leverage.  This bill needs to be passed quickly, and Republicans can't afford to let it fail.  I think Rubio is probably bluffing about voting no, but Republicans might rather just throw him some small ($50-100 billion) concession, rather than risk finding out.    Hell, it might even help them if it gives the impression that Republicans are negotiating in good faith (even if those negotiations are only between Republicans). 

Your first line seems to indicate we’re disagreeing, but nothing you said afterwards does. I think we’re expecting the same thing, iow. He’s probably trying to leverage what he can short term but will ultimately get in line like everyone else does. Even McCain, past that one moment of drama, has been much more critical with his comments than with his actions. 

[Maithanet]

1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

Your first line seems to indicate we’re disagreeing, but nothing you said afterwards does. I think we’re expecting the same thing, iow. He’s probably trying to leverage what he can short term but will ultimately get in line like everyone else does. Even McCain, past that one moment of drama, has been much more critical with his comments than with his actions. 

My point is that Rubio is usually a team player, and there's a chance he's bluffing now.  However, you can't be sure that he's bluffing every time.  I think he has enough leverage that McConnell et al can't chance it, and will instead throw some small concession his way to make sure he's on board.  The absolute worst case scenario for Republicans would be a repeat of the health care fiasco where Corker+Collins+Rubio torpedo the bill. 

If that happens, the Republicans can add pissed off donors to the list of problems heading into 2018, along with unenthusiastic base support, broad and motivated Democratic opposition and Trump's many disasters.  I firmly believe that while this tax cut is absolutely terrible, that the alternative of not passing anything is indeed politically worse for Republicans. 

[Fez]

34 minutes ago, WinterFox said:

Wouldn't it be politically expedient for Marco Rubio to be a firm no on Taxes?

He could really fuck Trump

I don't think so. If Trump's support among Republicans was below 50%, it'd suggest there is room for a successful primary challenge and therefore the potential reward for turning the populist dagger against him would be worth it. But Trump's support isn't that low yet (though I saw a poll floating around that Trump's support among Fox News viewers was at 64%, so he's getting closer to some red lines), so the risk to Rubio of massively pissing off his donors remains his biggest concern.

[James Arryn]

25 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

My point is that Rubio is usually a team player, and there's a chance he's bluffing now.  However, you can't be sure that he's bluffing every time.  I think he has enough leverage that McConnell et al can't chance it, and will instead throw some small concession his way to make sure he's on board.  The absolute worst case scenario for Republicans would be a repeat of the health care fiasco where Corker+Collins+Rubio torpedo the bill. 

If that happens, the Republicans can add pissed off donors to the list of problems heading into 2018, along with unenthusiastic base support, broad and motivated Democratic opposition and Trump's many disasters.  I firmly believe that while this tax cut is absolutely terrible, that the alternative of not passing anything is indeed politically worse for Republicans. 

Yeah, I think I get you. Maybe where we differ is how we view McCain. I tend to think that tanking the health bill was very much a one-off, out of character moment where he walked his talk. I don’t think Rubio is ultimately that much less prone to actually going maverick than they thought McCain was. It could happen, and I concede mccain’s moment may make Mcconnell have to hedge more than he would otherwise, but I expect he’ll win the staring contest barring some cosmetic concessions. I think being heard/remembered was Rubio’s point here rather than actually bucking the system, and i’d Imagine Mitch thinks likewise. Give him his moment with his name back on a top bill, then back to business as usual. 

But I do agree McConnell probably thought the same of McCain and lost, so maybe he’ll have unquiet moments in w/e he calls his soul. Wallet?