US Politics: the Moore things change...

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours 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.

I can admit when I’m wrong and/or being hyperbolic. That’s just not the case here, and I understand supply and demand just fine. It’s a two way street though, and as other have pointed out, your examples are poor choices because the demand for what those inventions could provide predated the invention of said products. Claiming that production for the sake of production will create demand is inaccurate, hence why Say’s Law is flawed construct that’s overly simplistic.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Rubio isn’t bluffing, but he’s also not making an unreasonable demand, so it should be a non-issue. I saw an interview he did earlier and he was ripping his colleagues and some of the additions that were made to the bill before his and how it’s hard to justify them (like saying they’re cutting the top tax rate while hurting working class people with kids).

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Claiming that production for the sake of production will create demand is inaccurate, hence why Say’s Law is flawed construct that’s overly simplistic.

Without getting in the rest of this debate, the whole concept has often been present in various guises during many of our policy debates over the years. It started with people saying trying to say back in 2008 that everything was just a structural problem and the market would right itself.

And then you had people like Casey Mulligan running around (and well Robert Lucas too) trying to blame Obama for “growth killing policies” because heaven forbid there be a general demand side failure. And then you had people like Jaime Dimon and the CEO Business Clowntable trying to say there was a “skills gap” because heaven forbid a demand side failure was the actual issue (or the most important one at the time).

But, anyway, aside from all this, I think it takes a lot of nerve on the part of the Republican Party or Trump to start talking about infrastructure now. I mean how do they intend to pay for it? We know they ain’t going to tax the rich to pay for it.  Do they intend to cut Social Security, Medicare etc. to pay for it?

[The Anti-Targ]

3 hours ago, Fez said:

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.

But probably half of those people might vote for a different Republican if they think Trump has a low chance of winning in 2020. A smart Fox News watching, Trump supporter might look at overall approval and decide that a Republican in office is better than Trump being kicked out of office. But the question is does such a person even exist?