popper wrote:Just like it's a certainty IMO that Trump will win the "Mexico pays for the Wall" conflict (we have all the leverage, they have none) I also see the sanctuary city conflict being resolved relatively quickly. For instance Trump might prohibit all federal agencies or organizations receiving funds from the treasury from participating in any conventions or meetings taking place in sanctuary cities. There's a dozen other policies he could enact that would devastate the economies of the law breaking municipalities.
Well, at least you included an "IMO" in this sequence of false and/or fake "certainties." I give you credit for that.
Tell me, if Mexico has to pay a tax or tariff on goods it exports here, will that lower the price of those goods, raise the price of those goods, or have no effect on the price of those goods? I count on you to understand that it will raise the price of those goods.
Who will pay that higher price, hmmmm? Lets say some brake parts for a Ford Taurus come from Mexico. When their price goes up, inevitably the price of the Ford Taurus goes up, doesn't it? Or shouldn't we mention that? Who pays that higher price for the Taurus? An American consumer. So... who is it who's paying for the wall, do tell me again?
You may be tempted to reply that the higher price will incentivize Ford to start making those brake parts in the US. It may. Over an extended time. If consumers buy fewer Ford Taurus cars. Then again, it's kind of useful to spread the down side risk w/ a Mexican partner. One less factory for you to take out of existence when problems arise. As well, when a different company in Mexico comes up w/ a better brake part, there's little friction for Ford in switching.
Here's something else to absorb:
HIgher prices on imported car parts > higher prices for cars > fewer cars sold > fewer cars built > fewer auto workers.
Hmmmm....
As to the "sanctuary city" conflict (you know... the one you just made up), you sure do like those dictatorial powers, don't you? Wow, that's how to fix everything.
When you say "law-breaking municipalities" btw, don't we usually respond to "law breaking" by way of the justice system? Or is that too indirect for the new version of America? Btw, can you point to any laws any municipality would be breaking? Hmmm?
One of the hallmarks of conservatism, I thought, was less government power, in fact, less government altogether. You don't give much evidence of an interest in that. Rather the opposite.
