Posted by 79 at 8:11pm Feb 24 '13Why would I say "the hypocrites will happily allow the company to continue to sell its products to out-of-state customers so they can continue to reap the rewards to their state's economy" if they weren't doing exactly that?
no, i mean the difference between not kicking the entire company out of the state and begging them to stay. i don't think it's hypocritical to ban selling a product wherever it's made. like you say later:
banning a product and expecting its manufacturer to stick around is just unrealistic and absurd.
i agree. i just didn't see anywhere in your post that the politicians supporting the ban were expecting/hoping/begging the company to stick around. if they were whining or blaming the company for moving, that's one thing - but if they accept that the company might decide to move out of spite, i don't see the hypocrisy at all.
What I actually said is that if the governor is so worried about the effects of losing $67 million, how bad is losing $85 million going to be?
not as bad as losing $152 million. look, this is really where i lost your argument. i tried to explain that fighting for one source of funding you think you should get is different from being okay with losing another source of funding in order to do something you value.
the governor probably wants that $67M even more since the $85M might be gone, right?
it seems to me that refusing to pass a law you think would be good for your state just because a corporation doesn't like it is exactly what lots of people complain about concerning politicians. and it seems to me that valuing money from corporations over what you think is good for the state is also pretty skeazy. these guys are far from hypocritical - they're showing that they're putting the people before the money.
what's wrong with that?
as to the company leaving, as i said and you didn't address, it would be out of spite. sure, it might be insulting that they can't sell their most popular product where it's made....but most huge companies nowadays don't sell to local markets anyhow.
they'd lose some money from colorado sales, sure - but they're losing that anyway. they'd be the ones firing people and moving elsewhere when it'd make no economic sense. in effect, you're calling politicians hypocrites for not bowing to corporate threats*. which i don't understand, coming from you and your libertarian views. in any other industry, if the government were doing something they believed in the public interest and allowed themselves to be bullied by corporate spite and money, you'd be up in arms (pun intended, heh).
*i'm aware you have not said these exact words. but you have said that this company generates $85M for the state and that potentially losing this money makes the democrats hypocrites. i don't know how to take that aside from "if a state government is trying to secure certain types of funding, it would be hypocritical to say 'no' to any corporation that pays them taxes."
no, i mean the difference between not kicking the entire company out of the state and begging them to stay. i don't think it's hypocritical to ban selling a product wherever it's made. like you say later:
banning a product and expecting its manufacturer to stick around is just unrealistic and absurd.
i agree. i just didn't see anywhere in your post that the politicians supporting the ban were expecting/hoping/begging the company to stick around. if they were whining or blaming the company for moving, that's one thing - but if they accept that the company might decide to move out of spite, i don't see the hypocrisy at all.
What I actually said is that if the governor is so worried about the effects of losing $67 million, how bad is losing $85 million going to be?
not as bad as losing $152 million. look, this is really where i lost your argument. i tried to explain that fighting for one source of funding you think you should get is different from being okay with losing another source of funding in order to do something you value.
the governor probably wants that $67M even more since the $85M might be gone, right?
it seems to me that refusing to pass a law you think would be good for your state just because a corporation doesn't like it is exactly what lots of people complain about concerning politicians. and it seems to me that valuing money from corporations over what you think is good for the state is also pretty skeazy. these guys are far from hypocritical - they're showing that they're putting the people before the money.
what's wrong with that?
as to the company leaving, as i said and you didn't address, it would be out of spite. sure, it might be insulting that they can't sell their most popular product where it's made....but most huge companies nowadays don't sell to local markets anyhow.
they'd lose some money from colorado sales, sure - but they're losing that anyway. they'd be the ones firing people and moving elsewhere when it'd make no economic sense. in effect, you're calling politicians hypocrites for not bowing to corporate threats*. which i don't understand, coming from you and your libertarian views. in any other industry, if the government were doing something they believed in the public interest and allowed themselves to be bullied by corporate spite and money, you'd be up in arms (pun intended, heh).
*i'm aware you have not said these exact words. but you have said that this company generates $85M for the state and that potentially losing this money makes the democrats hypocrites. i don't know how to take that aside from "if a state government is trying to secure certain types of funding, it would be hypocritical to say 'no' to any corporation that pays them taxes."
Re: Uh... wow... - 79