Economic Liberty

Small Businesses Benefit From Deregulation But Remain Stymied by Trump's Trade Policy

Dump intrusive trade policies to give a real boost to consumers and entrepreneurs.


Perhaps it's a sign of the times that the Trump administration's efforts to reduce burdensome business regulations leave observers baffled because the measures are not intended to stroke big business.

"Time and again, his deregulatory moves as president have drawn the ire of the very companies that were expected to benefit," The Washington Post noted earlier this month.

The Post went on to point out that "major oil companies" did not like a new Environmental Protection Agency plan "to eliminate mandates paring methane leaks from oil wells."

Never mind that large companies benefit from regulatory red-tape that can hobble smaller competitors. And small companies really do suffer disproportionately from regulations.

"Considering all federal regulations, all sectors of the U.S. economy, and all firm sizes, federal regulations cost $8,086 per employee per year in 2008," according to a 2010 study from the Small Business Administration (SBA). "For firms with fewer than 20 employees, the cost is $10,585 per employee per year. The cost is $7,454 in medium-sized firms, and $7,755 in large firms."

"Costs per employee thus appear to be at least 36 percent higher in small firms than in medium-sized and large firms," the SBA concluded.

Revisiting the issue in 2016, a U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation study found "federal regulations alone are estimated to cost the American economy as much as $1.9 trillion a year in direct costs, lost productivity, and higher prices. The costs to smaller businesses with 50 employees or fewer are nearly 20% higher than the average for all firms."

For small start-up businesses, first-year regulatory costs average $83,019, according to the National Small Business Association. That's in addition to the hassles and time-suck of figuring out what rules apply—responsibilities handled by dedicated staff at large firms.

This disproportionate impact of red tape on small businesses isn't exactly a revelation. Buried in The Washington Post's piece on the Trump administration's deregulatory efforts is an acknowledgement that "the EPA's proposal would benefit smaller oil producers that are less able to absorb the costs of methane-monitoring and repair programs."

Not only do small businesses have a tougher time navigating the regulatory spider web, they also face the very real risk that large firms with lots of clout will "capture" regulators and use them to hamper less-connected competitors. That's not a new or easily remedied phenomenon.

A century ago, Harvey Washington Wiley, the first head of the agency that became the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), worked "hand in glove with firms that benefited from his enforcement of the pure food law," according to historian Clayton Anderson Coppin and economist Jack C. High in their 1999 book, The Politics of Purity. "Wiley helped these firms gain a competitive advantage over their rivals."

Generations later, the FDA remains a poster child for regulatory capture, with large firms employing former regulatory staff and benefiting from close ties to the agency.

No wonder roughly half of surveyed small business owners told the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) in 2017 that regulations are a "very serious" or "somewhat serious" problem. They may be enough of a problem to act as a significant deterrent to trying to launch a business at all. Slumping entrepreneurialism has prompted much hand-wringing in recent years as fewer Americans have made the attempt to launch new companies.

So when the SBA issues an admittedly self-congratulatory announcement about "changes to 18 specific rules that reduced the regulatory burden for small business," we would expect any resulting applause to come from the small outfits that benefit. Major players—who long ago mastered the complexities of regulatory compliance and may now face more worries about competitors nipping at their heels—should be expected to be rather less thrilled.

In fact, while regulation still remains a pressing concern in the latest NFIB survey, it has declined in importance relative to other issues in the two years since half of independent business owners called it a "very serious" or "somewhat serious" problem. During that time, the current administration has pressed forward with plans to roll back rules affecting multiple industries, and to ease enforcement of some rules that remain in place.

Although the president is prone to overstate his victories, roughly five regulations have been repealed for every new one implemented, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Given the Trump administration's recognition of the burdens imposed on businesses—small firms in particular—by government regulations, it's important to point out the president's biggest blind spot on the issue. "Trump is a protectionist in many ways, and tariffs are taxes and regulations on the border are regulations on consumers," Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform told Reason's John Stossel last month.

Many small businesses sell imported goods that are deliberately made more expensive and therefore less attractive to consumers by protectionist policies.

Theoretically, that's supposed to be addressed by the Trump administration's plan to promote domestic manufacturing. But "tariffs make [the] 'made in the US' model too costly," warns the National Retail Federation. That's because small U.S. manufacturers themselves often rely on components from overseas, and trade barriers make those materials more expensive and raise the ultimate price of the goods they produce.

As a result, "economic confidence among small firms fell in August to the lowest level since November 2012," the Wall Street Journal reported recently. "Forty-five percent of small firms said the tariff announcement would impact their business."

The Trump administration's burdensome trade policies are offsetting the good the administration has done through deregulation in other areas of the economy. Jettisoning protectionism would be an effective way for the administration to live up to its promise to reduce government intrusiveness with the greatest boon going to small businesses and American consumers.

NEXT: Co-Author of San Francisco's E-Cigarette Ban Wants the FDA to Silence His Opponents

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. "Small Businesses Benefit From Deregulation But Remain Stymied by Trump's Trade Policy"

    But Reason never seems to mention that the trade agreements between states are SELDOM IF EVER not stymied by the trade policy itself.

    This includes the ones in place before Trump was elected.

    1. I've made 10,000usd so far this year working 0nline. I'm utilizing an online business opportunity. My beautiful companion demonstrated me and I've made parcel of preferred standpoint of this site. It's truly easy to use and I'm simply so glad that I got some answers concerning it.. .. go to this site home tab for more subtle elements...

  2. Your only proof is a 2012 survey of what might happen?

    "November 2012," the Wall Street Journal reported recently. "Forty-five percent of small firms said the tariff announcement would impact their business.""

    How about the inflation data? Tariffs have lasted over a year now. No inflation. Hmm...

    How about manufacturers surveys like the NY one? Only 15% said they'd been harmed with more saying it helped.

    Why does the all tariffs bad crowd not use actual data over the last 2 years the tariffs have been here and resort to theory or 2012 surveys?

    1. Or that growth in manufacturing continues to surpass expectations?

      1. Not according to Trump, who only counts manufacturing jobs, like the idiot he is.

        1. Manufacturing jobs are up overall since he took office, though we did see a slight decline last month. But hey, if your best argument is call people slavers and call Trump an idiot, you do you.

          1. The tariffs are meant to increase manufacturing jobs. This comes at a cost to prices. Free trade is better for more people, not just those who get manufacturing jobs at firms being protected by the government.

            1. No the tariffs are meant to force China to be more open with trade and end trade practices that hobble US competition. This in turn will increase manufacturing by allowing our goods to compete with Chinese goods. But in the meantime it will probably not do much to increase manufacturing jobs. Yes, Trump says a lot of shit about cheap Chinese goods etc, but his actual demands for China deal with unfair Chinese trade practices.

    2. No data is needed where logic will suffice.

      1. Logic is based upon interpretation of data. Without data you can't have logic.

        1. Strictly speaking, that is not true. The study of logic is the study of valid inferences that preserve the truth values of premises. No data on the truth values of the premises is indeed to determine whether a set of inferences is valid.

          1. Valid inferences require data to support them. Eternal truth is a form of data.

          2. Wow.. everything you say sounds like you stopped college school after getting straight Bs in an intro class.

            Economics is a chaotic field of study. There are no 100% truisms. You have to look at the data and mine for irrational or surprising behaviors.

            You sound like a central planning statist.

          3. Agreed. Rationalism is best backed up with empiricism.

      2. "Chipper Morning Wood
        September.23.2019 at 12:31 pm
        No data is needed"

        Annnnnnnd you're done.

        1. Fuck off, Tulpa.

          1. Aww, you seem super cranky. Must be sharing that airbnb cause you can't afford a whole place to yourself.

            1. Abandoned refrigerator boxes are edible for AirBnB? Who knew? I could make a fortune!

      3. You sound just like those climate alarmist settles science idiots.

        I'm not shocked you believe rules fully based on really bad assumptions are logic. There is a reason economists will tell you that economics is the study of explaining why you were wrong yesterday. People dont act rationally all the time, which is why econ 101 logic makes you look fucking retarded day in and day out.

        The two intro classes that makes retards of people is intro to stats and intro to econ because dumbshits like you think they understand them given very little depth to the field of study.

    3. Also, if you click on the 'tariffs' tag at the bottom of the article, you will see a listing of dozens of articles on this subject, many of which cite evidence of the deleterious effects of Trump's tariffs.

      1. "MARKETS IMPLODING!!!" isn't evidence.

        1. Nor is Boehm’s shrill pearl clutching. Nor even his pants shitting.

          1. He acts like he has no real idea of the scope of anything. Criticism is fine, but the sky isn't falling every single God damned day.

      2. My argument holds true in each of those cases if you look at the comments dumbshit. There's a reason why the only evidence Boehm has presented are based on models, not data, like Moodys which is the same model that predicted 100s of thousands of jobs from ACA. Models are set on assumptions. If the assumptions are wrong, your model is wrong.

        All models are wrong, some are useful. - E.B. Box

    4. Why does the all-tariffs all-Trump crowd not understand the basic problem -- it's none of your fucking business?

      Why do none of you ever answer the basic question: where do you get the moral authority to control who I do business with, who I visit, or what I do? Why is it any of your business to mind my business for me without my permission? What gives you the moral right to tax me differently based on country or race?

      Fuck off, slaver.

      1. If you are doing business with people who are intentionally trying to hurt me and my country then it becomes my business, doesn't it? You don't live in a vacuum, your actions can impact others. That isn't slavery. In fact, telling us to suck it up because it benefits you is far closer to slavery.
        China has long used tactics with the sole purpose of hurting US industries and US interests. They also support a number of nation-states and organizations who are also hostile to the US.
        Your insistence on being able to do business with them means you at least tacitly approve of their actions or are at best indifferent to them.
        If it only impacted you, I'd say go for it, but since it obviously doesn't you claim to want to be left alone impacts my life. Why do you think your profit margins are more important then protecting fellow Americans intellectual property rights? Or supporting a regime that actively bars American competition through tariffs and regulations?
        Your claim to self determination appears to discount all of the evils of China while also being extremely selfish. You accuse others of being slavers but expect everyone to accept China's duplicity and hostility because it benefits you while hurting a number of others. That seems to violate the NAP in my opinion.

        1. No IT DOES NOT. If you are harmed by Joe, that does not require everybody else to shun Joe, and it does not give you any moral authority to prevent me from doing business with Joe.

          And aside from all that coercion, what gives you the moral authority to force your opinion of harm on me? That way leads to snowflakes getting butt hurt in the third degree and forcing me to agree with them.

          You do not control my business or my thoughts or my life. The moment you think you have that moral authority, you become an authoritarian prig who thinks you are better than everybody else. A fucking elitist moral prig.

          Fuck off, slaver. Mind your own goddam business and I will mind mine.

          1. If Joe is actively trying to hurt me and you do business with Joe it is my business. You can't talk your way out of that. It impacts me so I am allowed to have an opinion on you doing business with Joe. Now, expanding that to a nation state, when you do business with a hostile nation state, you are adversely impacting your nation. You act like you live in a vacuum. Or and telling everyone who disagrees with you to fuck off and labeling them slavers and then accusing them of being snowflakes has got to be the epitomy of lack of self awareness.
            I will mind my business and not yours right up until your business impacts me and my family and country.
            It isn't that I care what you think or do, as long as it does not harm me. But as soon as it does, then it becomes my business. What part of that is so hard for you to grasp. It isn't authoritarian at all. It is self defense, which I thought was a Libertarian concept. Or are you suggesting I simply accept any harm your actions cause because I have no right to defend myself against harm?
            So far all you seem to be able to argue is that you can do business with whomever you want no matter how much it harms others. And those who are harmed should just shut up and accept it. That they have no recourse but to accept being harmed because it benefits you.
            Let's take this to am extreme. Would you say I must accept you doing business with Al Qaida or ISIS because you want to (hypothetically speaking)? Where does the line exist? Or is there no line?

            1. You can't talk at all. Answer my question: What gives you the moral right to decide, on your own, that the harm you perceive from Joe is the same harm I perceive? What gives you the moral right to make that unilateral decision for me?

              Persuade me. Lay out your case. Do NOT use the NAP to decide you are better than me and I must follow you blindly.

              That makes you a slaver. Fuck off.

              1. You're not even forwarding a coherent argument.

                1. You're an idiot without any argument.

                  1. You're a Whihn sockpuppet, and still not forwarding a coherent argument.

              2. I just did. Once it harms me it becomes my business. You seem to want to avoid the moral obligations of your actions.
                If you are selling ammunition to a country that is using it to shoot at me and my fellow soldiers doesn't it become my business? You keep avoiding this question.

                1. It becomes your business only to the extent that you can try to persuade me to believe you and possibly follow you.

                  It DOES NOT become your business to the extent you get to coerce me into not doing business with Joe.

                  What the fuck is so hard to understand about the NAP?

                  Why do so many damned snowflakes think their hurt is so much my problem that my problems become their problems?

                  1. Because when my actions help contribute to your problems I am no longer an innocent bystander but actively aiding injuring you.
                    If you know Joe is going to come beat me up with the bat you sell him, do you have no culpability in selling him the aforementioned bat?

                    1. Then charge me with a crime and PROVE your harm is my fault.

                      You DO NOT get to unilaterally decide who has harmed you and who else has to hep you. That is coercion and violates the NAP. Prove I knew Joe was going to attack you. Prove I aided and abetted his crime. Don't just assert it and expect me to fall in line. PROVE IT. CONVINCE ME.

                      Otherwise you are still just a slaver. Fuck off.

                    2. I stated specifically in my example that you know Joe was buying the bat to beat me up. When you buy Chinese made goods that were created by unfair trade practices you are aiding China in continuing those unfair trade practices. You believe you have little culpability and that the government (US) has no roles in dictating who you do business with. But how does that apply when it is a foreign goverernment using it's resources to benefit it's companies (state supported companied at that, protected from US competition by their government) at the cost of American companies?
                      So the US government has no obligation to protect it's citizens against a foreign government's actions?

                  2. "Muh morals!"

                    What an incredibly stupid and ineffective argument.
                    I imagine life is quite difficult if that is indicative of your usual manner.

                2. So China is attacking us indirectly? So you'd throw ammunition manufacturers under the buss for selling to criminals? How about the UPS driver who delivers it, do they get run out of business too?

                  A gun grabber too. It figures.

                  1. If that is what you got from my example you aren't nearly as intelligent as you think you are.

                    1. And if you can't convince my by persuasion and still think you have the right to coerce me, you are a fucking slaver.

                    2. "SlaVeR!!!!"

                      Yea, real convincing argument.
                      Honestly, you're starting to convince me that you don't even have a right to exist. Much like a fly, or a rock.
                      Good job

                    3. I don't have a right to coerce you unless your actions cause me harm. By doing business with someone who is harming me you are aiding them in doing me harm. Thus I have the ability to coerce you. That is a building block of the NAP. Once you decide to act aggressively towards me or aid those who are, I can respond. You seem to be confused on this point.

                3. First of all I didn't throw ammunition manufacturers under the bus, it was an allegory but misperception of what I said seems to be your go to move.
                  I can only persuade you to stop doing business with Joe? And if you tell me to fuck off and Joe hurts me or someone else what are my recourses? You seem to argue the NAP frees you from any moral thought as to how your business harms others.
                  Additionally, with China, the problem is that the Government of China is actively restricting American Businesses from competing while simultaneously using their powers to steal technology and intellectual property. This is then turned over to Chinese businesses that take this stolen information and technology, reproduce it cheaply (subsidized extensively by the Government) and floods the market with cheap copies destroying the market for US foods. Since the Government of China is so heavily involved the only recourse to these actions is for our goverernment to get involved. That means negotiations and persuasion, a carrot and stick approach. Individuals cannot fight a foreign government.

                  1. It's the same thing. Convince me or go home. You do not get to coerce me.

                    1. The fuck he doesn't.
                      Or are you in open rebellion?

                      Tis a waste of time to discuss anything with you, as you're a fanatic dogmatist incapable of nuance or compromise.

                    2. You seem okay with allowing foreign governments screwing over your fellow citizens because it benefits you and you claim this is not a form of aggression. And the same time you also verbally slander all who disagree with you and attempt to dictate what they can or cannot say. And you accuse others of being slavers and snowflakes? You don't see the cognitive dissonance of this stance?

              3. I’m certainly better than you. In every way that matters. It you’re too,stupid t understand that.

                1. I punctuate better than you. So there! Liar liar pants on fire.

                  1. Ahem
                    "Liar-liar", or, "liar, liar" would've been proper grammar

                    1. Grammar, punctuation... whatever

        2. If you want to make the moral case that I should not do business with Joe, go ahead. Argument is fine, persuasion is fine.

          Coercion sucks. You don't get to violate the NAP to coerce me into following your interpretation of the NAP.

          1. But that is exactly what you are proposing by stating it isn't my fucking business.
            Is it coercion to make it illegal to do business with a hostile nation-state during war time? Why or why not? And if it is, is that acceptable?
            How about if you are doing business with a gang they hold my neighborhood hostage with violence?

            1. Yes it is fucking coercion. What don't you understand about how laws work? They are coercion. You don't get to decide who has harmed me, and you don't get to force me into helping you against my will.

              C. O. E. R. C. I. O. N.

              Look it up.

              Look up the Non-Aggression Principle.

              1. China is already involved in coercion you idiot.

                1. He isn’t capable of understanding any of this Jesse. He’s just too goddamn stupid.

                2. So prove it. CONVINCE ME. Persuade me. Do not coerce me.

                  1. Why?
                    You. Do. Not. Matter.

              2. So it would be okay to sell chemicals used to make chemical weapons to a nation that then turns around as uses them on your country? You don't see a problem with that stance?
                How about selling weapons grade uranium to a terrorist who then explodes it in a densely populated city? You don't see a problem with that?
                Once again where do you draw the line?

                1. CONVINCE ME. Prove it. Do not coerce me. You do not get to just assert harm and expect everyone to bow and follow.

                  1. Keep paying your taxes, boy.

                    Nobody is forcing anybody (in the US) to do business or import from China. You are free to do so. There are a set of conditions and consequences that go with such trade. You can choose to do so within those conditions, or refrain from that trade, or do so trying to violate those conditions and risk consequences (such as when one doesn't pay income taxes).

                  2. So if I can't persuade you not to sell uranium to terrorist it is okay for you to sell uranium to terrorist? Is that really your answer?

              3. The non-aggression policy allows for me to respond and even get the government to respond when aggression by a third party harms me or others. It isn't a suicidal pact by which all harm must be ignored so that we can do whatever we please. If you do active business with someone who is harming me, that benefits the person or entity harming me. That enabled them to continue to harm me. By your continuing to do business with them you are in fact aiding their aggression against me. If I cannot dissuade you from doing business with them, then my only recourse is to seek outside help or accept your aiding in aggression against me. You are arguing that I must accept the latter because the former is "coercion and coercion is bad!" À
                This is an attempt by you to remove any culpability from your actions and asking for ignoring aggression because it is once removed.
                The difference between this and say gun control is that the vast majority of gun owners don't cause harm to others, so selling a gun is not in itself aiding aggression. But if you knowingly sell a gun to someone who is planning a mass shooting (e g. they tell you they are going to go out and kill as many people as possible) you deciding to sell the gun makes you culpable in their actions.
                Now let us take China. The Chinese government actively steals technology from an American business, copies it, gives it to a Chinese company to sell and subsidizes the aforementioned company to such a degree that they can corner the market, destroying the original manufacturers business. You decide that you want this technology for your company and you feel you should be able to purchase from the Chinese company. You maintain by buying from the Chinese government supported company you have no culpability for what happens to the US company. And that their only recourse is to try and convince you that it is wrong to knowingly but stolen goods. That any actions taken to protect their property that was stolen is wrong.
                So your understanding of the NAP is that it covers knowingly aiding an enemy country? Knowingly supplying products that can be used to harm your own countryman and knowingly purchasing stolen goods? And that you must be free from any repecussions of your actions? That is anarchy not libertarianism.

          2. How about you doing business with a country that uses it's intelligence agencies to steal my work and impoverishes me?

            1. That is YOUR business. You do not get to subvert the NAP by coercing me into helping you unilaterally. You do not get to decide what I should think about the NAP. You do not get to decide where and when the NAP applies just because you are butt hurt, you poor little snowflake.

              Argue all you want. Try to persuade me. DO NOT COERCE ME.

              1. So my recourse is to go into poverty but allow you to benefit from the hostility and aggression perpetrated against me? And you don't see how your benefiting from aggression against me is aggression in and of itself?

                1. Your recourse is to convince me. Your recourse is not to coerce me.

                  1. You do realize you are defending the concept of purchasing stolen goods and stating that my only recourse is to protest you buying goods that were stolen from me?

              2. Your actions, by ignoring the harm done by me and forcing me to accept that you can ignore it for your own good is coercing me. It is coercing me to accept the aggression against me because it benefits you. You are excusing aggression by not seeing that supporting aggressors benefits them at the cost of their victims.

                1. Your actions, by bypassing the persuasion step and proceeding directly to coercion, show you to be a slaver unworthy of paying attention to.

                  1. When did I bypass the persuasion step? You call me a slaver, but want to profit by purchasing goods stolen from me.

          3. What is beyond retarded here is your belief that Chinas practices does not harm all US consumers through coercion of global markets.

            You have such a simple mind that you believe you are unaffected by massively linked chaotic systems through economics.

            You have the trade theory of less than a retard.

            You want everyone else to be affected because you're too stupid to care about what the actual conditions on international trade are. You seek to enslave all global trade practices on your bullshit NAP policy even though china is constantly violating the NAP whether you say so or not. You want people to live under your idiotic conditions.

            1. What is beyond the NAP is your belief that you get to decide for me what harms anybody but you. You do not get to decide that for me or anybody else. You do not get to coerce me base don your beliefs. Argue all you want. Persuade me. But DO NOT COERCE ME.

              Why is that so hard to understand?

              1. "What is beyond the NAP is your belief that you get to decide for me what harms anybody but you"

                Not really. You have a voluntary association that engages in trade. You're free to go your way, but it's not an NAP violation to do what the association you choose to belong to was created for.

                1. It ain't free trade if you dictate the terms.

                  1. It isn't free trade if one side bars trade while the other side has few regulations on trade either.

          4. Let me put this more simply for the simpelton...

            The NAP isnt simply "whatever ABC thinks is affecting him." Its a generalized idea of all aggression policies. This includes aggression of others. Hitler wasnt in line with the NAP because he simply left a few blue eyed kids alone. But that's what you are arguing the NAP is simpleton. You think it is relative to your experience.

            1. He’s incapable of seeing beyond that. And he loves all tariffs that predate January 2017.

              1. Funny little third person commenter doesn't have the balls to wade in directly. Fuck off, slaver sucker.

                1. Telling someone to fuck off and labeling them violates the NAP

            2. And your coercion violates the NAP. You can act in self-defense, but I am not harming you, and the harm you claim from China is just a claim, and a biased one. You need to prove it to get others to voluntarily help you.

              1. Okay, I am a rancher. China actively bans the sale of US beef that uses growth hormones. China also has a number of other regulations that hurt US beef. Their aim is not to protect their people but to dictate the price of US beef. They occasionally lift the ban on US beef, but only when the price drops dramatically. These actions harm US beef prices. This directly harms me. Not biased but actual real world example.
                Chinese spies have been caught digging up GM seeds from farmers fields. These seeds they have sent back to China. China has banned the sale of US GM seeds for decades. The Chinese government back engineered and or cloned US patented GM seeds, lifted their ban on GM foods, but only if they came from Chinese companies. These same companies were given the technology by the Chinese goverernment (stolen from US biotech companies, many of them small companies). These same Chinese companies were able to flood the market with these pirated seeds at extremely low prices because they didn't have to put any money into R&D and they are subsidized by the Chinese goverernment. This has harmed a number of US biotech companies.
                I can list a good number more of such examples.
                It is hypothetical is well documented that the Chinese goverernment actively steals American technology and intellectual property and then subsidizes their companies to produce the same product cheaper than the American companies. Once the Chinese goverernment is involved it isn't simply doing business or a free trade issue, it becomes a matter of national interest.

        3. Tariffs invite higher prices for consumers while protecting jobs that ought not to exist.

      2. "Why does the all-tariffs all-Trump crowd not understand the basic problem — it’s none of your fucking business?"

        That's not the basic problem. That's a fallback distraction to avoid admitting the tariffs aren't doing what you're claiming they are.

        1. No, you're the one making the argument that ONLY because you think tariffs are both working and not working, therefore I and everybody else must do what YOU decide.

          That's coercion. How hard is that word to understand?

          Whether or not the tariffs work. Whether or not Trump understands them. Whether or not I understand them. Whether or not you understand them.

          1. "No, you’re the one making the argument that ONLY because you think tariffs are both working and not working, therefore I and everybody else must do what YOU decide"

            Um, if you can link to me making that argument somewhere, so you aren't an obvious liar, go for it.

            Meanwhile, it's obvious I was dead on when I said "That’s a fallback distraction to avoid admitting the tariffs aren’t doing what you’re claiming they are."

            1. I said it didn't matter whether the tariffs work or not, or who believes they work or not. Your expecting me to fall in line on your mere say-so is coercion.

              1. "[you're] expecting..."

          2. China was violating the NAP whether you care or not simpleton. Active theft of intellectual property. Active manipulation of trade. Just because you're too stupid to live on reality doesnt change these facts.

            1. Then PROVE IT and CONVINCE ME.

              Assertion is not grounds for coercion.

              1. People have given multiple examples of the Chinese government's aggressive acts, which they then use to benefit their state supported companies. You have chosen to ignore them.

      3. When your only argument is on of emotion, maybe it is you who should fuck off. Us being static on trade deals doesnt stop China from manipulating our markets you dumbshit.

        1. "Us"? Since when are you the arbiter of "us"? Who put you in charge?

          1. China did when they decided they hate a state to state trade policy.

            My question is why you aren't going your own way, and instead complaining that the system is giving you what you want.

            Step up. Nothing is stopping you from doing it all yourself.

            1. PROVE IT. Convince me. Don't coerce me. How can it be any simpler?

              1. Yes, it is simple if you are okay with denying you have any ownership I aggression because you keep it one degree removed. But as with a lot of simplistic ideas it is not pragmatic.

          2. I DID!

            Got a problem with that? If so, feel free to fuck off.

    5. “November 2012,” the Wall Street Journal reported recently. “Forty-five percent of small firms said the tariff announcement would impact their business.””

      Damn, that is thin.
      7 years ago, less than half of small businesses surveyed said that tariffs would (without specifying positively or negatively) affect their business...

    6. Consumers pay artificially high prices. This may well include small business purchases.

      1. As opposed to paying artificially low prices because the Chinese goverernment blocks foreign competition, heavily subsidizes it's industries, uses state resources to conduct corporate espionage, including stealing intellectual property and artificially devalued it's currency to keep the value of its goods cheap. But hey you pay less for that Chinese made cell phone, so good on you.

    7. Anyone else notice that retard idealists start throwing out NAP whenever their juvenile arguments get easily swat down? ABC thinks the NAP only applies to how he is affected and cant actually make an intelligent economics argument.

    1. Spend like a drunken sailor? So on tattoos, alcohol and hookers? And local doodads?

      1. And what do you do with a drunken sailor?

        1. Have SP throw them in the brig if they get out of control.

  3. I have actually lived through that and done that. We grew from 3 guys to 500 in less than 10 years.

    And the entire way we kept running into new regulatory problems. There were many, many late nights spent reading rules together - trying to figure out what the heck that means, what are they trying to say here... they can't possibly intend....

    When SOX came along we spent over a quarter million on accounting firms consulting just to help us figure out what the heck was required and how to do it. That doesn't count any of the actual costs of becoming compliant.... that was just to come in and do a review and make recommendations.

    1. I love explaining to democrats and chamber of commerce republicans that they have rivers of blood on their hands.

  4. Politicians, regardless of the two dominate ones, hate deregulation because it makes them irrelevant and unnecessary.
    Just imagine if healthcare was deregulated and companies were forced to compete for customer's money.
    For that matter, imagine if any industry was deregulated and how much better service and lower prices would occur.
    But the ruling elitist turds will not deregulate because they don't want any of little people to have a choice, only subjection.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.