Posted by Kromey at 12:22am Feb 25 '13 i just didn't see anywhere in your post that the politicians supporting the ban were expecting/hoping/begging the company to stick around.
As I just said, I did say it in my first post, and I clarified it beyond all doubt in my reply to you. They are doing exactly this, as I've said three times now -- banning Magpul's products, but saying Magpul is welcome to stay and continue to pay into an unfriendly state's coffers.
And then people want to act surprised, or pretend that Magpul is bullying the politicians, when they respond by saying they'll move to somewhere that actually wants them and their products?
as to the company leaving, as i said and you didn't address, it would be out of spite.
...
What??? I quoted you and responded directly to that point, and now you're accusing me of not addressing it? What????
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.
This is a shallow and simplistic understanding of economic theory. Even if it were true that corporations somehow avoid selling to local markets (a completely fallacious idea in the first place), it ignores all of the other economic impacts of doing business, such as buying raw materials, shipping, salaries to local workers, etc.
How is it not hypocritical to accuse an object of being "too dangerous" to be owned by your constituents, and then all but beg the manufacturer of said object to stick around anyway so you can reap the rewards of selling these "too dangerous" objects to other states? Too dangerous for your state, but just fine to be sold to others? Really??
they'd be the ones firing people and moving elsewhere when it'd make no economic sense.
Actually, it does make economic sense. Magpul, and many other similar companies, rely upon consumer goodwill -- and a magazine manufacturer working to benefit an anti-gun state would generate exactly the opposite. Additionally, a company taking a stand against anti-gun politicians would generate a lot of goodwill with consumers.
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).
Uh... what? You really have zero comprehension of my views, and yet have a habit of arrogantly announcing to the world what I'd do. Rather wrongly, for the most part, I might add.
Of course, it's pretty damned obvious you're wrong if you think it's even remotely libertarian to favor government regulation just because a corporation might oppose it. Libertarianism tends to oppose government regulation, and doesn't generally give two fucks about corporate lobbying (except insofar as it coincides with opposition to government regulation).
but you have said that this company generates $85M for the state and that potentially losing this money makes the democrats hypocrites.
No, I have not said that.
As I just said, I did say it in my first post, and I clarified it beyond all doubt in my reply to you. They are doing exactly this, as I've said three times now -- banning Magpul's products, but saying Magpul is welcome to stay and continue to pay into an unfriendly state's coffers.
And then people want to act surprised, or pretend that Magpul is bullying the politicians, when they respond by saying they'll move to somewhere that actually wants them and their products?
as to the company leaving, as i said and you didn't address, it would be out of spite.
...
What??? I quoted you and responded directly to that point, and now you're accusing me of not addressing it? What????
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.
This is a shallow and simplistic understanding of economic theory. Even if it were true that corporations somehow avoid selling to local markets (a completely fallacious idea in the first place), it ignores all of the other economic impacts of doing business, such as buying raw materials, shipping, salaries to local workers, etc.
How is it not hypocritical to accuse an object of being "too dangerous" to be owned by your constituents, and then all but beg the manufacturer of said object to stick around anyway so you can reap the rewards of selling these "too dangerous" objects to other states? Too dangerous for your state, but just fine to be sold to others? Really??
they'd be the ones firing people and moving elsewhere when it'd make no economic sense.
Actually, it does make economic sense. Magpul, and many other similar companies, rely upon consumer goodwill -- and a magazine manufacturer working to benefit an anti-gun state would generate exactly the opposite. Additionally, a company taking a stand against anti-gun politicians would generate a lot of goodwill with consumers.
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).
Uh... what? You really have zero comprehension of my views, and yet have a habit of arrogantly announcing to the world what I'd do. Rather wrongly, for the most part, I might add.
Of course, it's pretty damned obvious you're wrong if you think it's even remotely libertarian to favor government regulation just because a corporation might oppose it. Libertarianism tends to oppose government regulation, and doesn't generally give two fucks about corporate lobbying (except insofar as it coincides with opposition to government regulation).
but you have said that this company generates $85M for the state and that potentially losing this money makes the democrats hypocrites.
No, I have not said that.
Re: Uh... wow... - Kromey