• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Brick by brick, American business loses edge Army chooses German firm

apdst said:
It's not protectionism. It's more of that common sense I mentioned in another thread. Spend tax payer dollars at home, not abroad. it in no way violates the capitalist market.
Click to expand...

It directly violates the capitalist market.
 
apdst said:
Actually, we stole their scientists to build rockets.



It was a Frenchman that came out with the first patent and it wasn't a timing belt, it was an interupter gear that caused the gun to stop firing when the prop passed in front of the muzzle.
Click to expand...

First appeared on a Fokker. Brits had the first working jet aircraft but the Me-262 hit the skies first.

So maybe it's their development that is faster, not the invention itself.
 
Deuce said:
It directly violates the capitalist market.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. You Libs and the RINO want to think so, in order to make more flamebeaux, but it doesn't.
 
apdst said:
No, it doesn't. You Libs and the RINO want to think so, in order to make more flamebeaux, but it doesn't.
Click to expand...

It's government bailout of companies that don't deserve it. They have the lesser product, why should we spend money on it?
 
apdst said:
It's not protectionism. It's more of that common sense I mentioned in another thread. Spend tax payer dollars at home, not abroad. it in no way violates the capitalist market.
Click to expand...

It does not matter whether it is common sense or not. Providing a bias toward a company, even though it might not be the best deal for the buyer, does not allow the "market to speak".
 
Deuce said:
First appeared on a Fokker. Brits had the first working jet aircraft but the Me-262 hit the skies first.

So maybe it's their development that is faster, not the invention itself.
Click to expand...

Fokker was Dutch. :rofl

And, the He 178 was the first trully jet propelled aircraft to fly. The He 280 was the first jet fighter and the 262 was the first jet fighter to see combat.
 
apdst said:
But, a schoolhouse? Yeah, I think that needs to be given to an American company, period.
Click to expand...

No problem there, just as long as that American company realizes that all they'll get is the lowest bid made.
 
apdst said:
No, it doesn't. You Libs and the RINO want to think so, in order to make more flamebeaux, but it doesn't.
Click to expand...

The Capitalist Mainfesto: The Empiricist Fallacy and Straw Man Attacks on Capitalism by Andrew Bernstein -- Capitalism Magazine

Businessmen frequently violate the principles of capitalism. They often yelp for tariffs and other protectionist restrictions; seek monopolistic governmental franchises; look for subsidies and corporate bailouts; clamor for anti-trust legislation and other legal constraints to be imposed on their competitors. On a regular basis, they call for governmental initiation of force to violate the rights of both their actual and prospective competitors.
Click to expand...

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5361

Since there is no moral argument for preventing one person from trading with another, anti-traders shift their argument to a patriotic appeal such as suggesting that we're losing our manufacturing sector. That doesn't square with the facts. According to a report given by Dr. William Strauss, senior economist for the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, titled "Is U.S. Losing Its Manufacturing Base?" the answer is no. In each of the past 60 years, U.S. manufacturing output growth has averaged 4 percent and productivity growth has averaged 3 percent. Manufacturing is going through the same process as agriculture. In 1900, 41 percent of American workers were employed in agriculture; today, only 2 percent are and agricultural output is greater. In 1940, 35 percent of workers were employed in manufacturing jobs; today, it's about 10 percent. Again, because of huge productivity gains, manufacturing output is greater.
Click to expand...

We have now officially established that you have no clue what capitalism is.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
And your source is an objectivist philosopher?...:rofl
Click to expand...

No. Capitalist Magazine. Where is your source? Oh I know. Your economic illiteracy.
 
I'm not a hard core capitalist, however I am one to generally believe that a majority capitalist system is going to be best. I'm going to try to describe a legitimate reason for this without it being blatant protectionist other than the BS “Common Sense”.

In any good business you work according to the requirements placed on you by the customers. If Apple went to Intel and said “We want you to make a chip for our new iMac, and you can design it any way you want, but its gotten use our Silicon (parts).” While Apple is “protecting” their own interest, they are not stepping outside of general capitalistic ideas here. Both sides have a choice. Apple to try and demand such a requirement and Intel in choosing if they want to take that limitation on to satisfy the customer.

Essentially, we in America ARE the customers for the government. They are spending our money, our resources, acting on behalf of us. As such, if one of our requirements (essentially as the customer) is that the money we’re giving the government to spend on various things (military, public works, grants, etc) MUST be reinvested into American interests, and that such a requirement is more important to us than simply “the cheapest” or even “the best”, then the Government is simply doing as their customer is wishing.

Additionally its hard to truly compare the Government to a company. A company gets money from goods or services it provides and in turn uses that to make more money.

The Government makes no goods and provides few services that are truly paid for outside of essentially covering cost. The money its using for the most part is not something it earned, but the people’s money that is taxed from them. By that very nature it makes us in part the customers and it takes it out of the purely private business, capitalistic model.

Indeed, by its very nature, the governments job is to SERVE THE PEOPLE, not make money which separates it completely from any and every other business. So in its cases something like this, while perhaps called protectionism, is not equal to say requiring corporations in general to have to use American products only. If it’s believed to be in the best interests of the citizens of this country, in regards to the economy, that tax dollars spent on American products re-introducing that money into domestic rather than foreign markets than the government SHOULD do that.

Those that try to equate the government and its spending to private business and immediately throw out the “capitalist” term are ignoring the fact that the two entities are not equal.
 
Hatuey said:
No. Capitalist Magazine. Where is your source? Oh I know. Your economic illiteracy.
Click to expand...

Who's your next source? Keith Olberman?...:rofl
 
Zyphlin said:
I'm not a hard core capitalist, however I am one to generally believe that a majority capitalist system is going to be best. I'm going to try to describe a legitimate reason for this without it being blatant protectionist other than the BS “Common Sense”.

In any good business you work according to the requirements placed on you by the customers. If Apple went to Intel and said “We want you to make a chip for our new iMac, and you can design it any way you want, but its gotten use our Silicon (parts).” While Apple is “protecting” their own interest, they are not stepping outside of general capitalistic ideas here. Both sides have a choice. Apple to try and demand such a requirement and Intel in choosing if they want to take that limitation on to satisfy the customer.

Essentially, we in America ARE the customers for the government. They are spending our money, our resources, acting on behalf of us. As such, if one of our requirements (essentially as the customer) is that the money we’re giving the government to spend on various things (military, public works, grants, etc) MUST be reinvested into American interests, and that such a requirement is more important to us than simply “the cheapest” or even “the best”, then the Government is simply doing as their customer is wishing.

Additionally its hard to truly compare the Government to a company. A company gets money from goods or services it provides and in turn uses that to make more money.

The Government makes no goods and provides few services that are truly paid for outside of essentially covering cost. The money its using for the most part is not something it earned, but the people’s money that is taxed from them. By that very nature it makes us in part the customers and it takes it out of the purely private business, capitalistic model.

Indeed, by its very nature, the governments job is to SERVE THE PEOPLE, not make money which separates it completely from any and every other business. So in its cases something like this, while perhaps called protectionism, is not equal to say requiring corporations in general to have to use American products only. If it’s believed to be in the best interests of the citizens of this country, in regards to the economy, that tax dollars spent on American products re-introducing that money into domestic rather than foreign markets than the government SHOULD do that.

Those that try to equate the government and its spending to private business and immediately throw out the “capitalist” term are ignoring the fact that the two entities are not equal.
Click to expand...

That is not what protectionism describes though. Protectionism is the action of a government taking active steps to protecting the local economy. Not a company taking active steps to protect itself. If you want to say that the government should protect our economy because you think that using the roads the government builds, VIA rail and medicare somehow makes you a customer of the government. That is fine. But don't try to say that it is not protectionism because it clearly is. Making the government protect our economy violates every rule of free market capitalism.
 
Zyphlin said:
I'm not a hard core capitalist, however I am one to generally believe that a majority capitalist system is going to be best. I'm going to try to describe a legitimate reason for this without it being blatant protectionist other than the BS “Common Sense”.

In any good business you work according to the requirements placed on you by the customers. If Apple went to Intel and said “We want you to make a chip for our new iMac, and you can design it any way you want, but its gotten use our Silicon (parts).” While Apple is “protecting” their own interest, they are not stepping outside of general capitalistic ideas here. Both sides have a choice. Apple to try and demand such a requirement and Intel in choosing if they want to take that limitation on to satisfy the customer.

Essentially, we in America ARE the customers for the government. They are spending our money, our resources, acting on behalf of us. As such, if one of our requirements (essentially as the customer) is that the money we’re giving the government to spend on various things (military, public works, grants, etc) MUST be reinvested into American interests, and that such a requirement is more important to us than simply “the cheapest” or even “the best”, then the Government is simply doing as their customer is wishing.

Additionally its hard to truly compare the Government to a company. A company gets money from goods or services it provides and in turn uses that to make more money.

The Government makes no goods and provides few services that are truly paid for outside of essentially covering cost. The money its using for the most part is not something it earned, but the people’s money that is taxed from them. By that very nature it makes us in part the customers and it takes it out of the purely private business, capitalistic model.

Indeed, by its very nature, the governments job is to SERVE THE PEOPLE, not make money which separates it completely from any and every other business. So in its cases something like this, while perhaps called protectionism, is not equal to say requiring corporations in general to have to use American products only. If it’s believed to be in the best interests of the citizens of this country, in regards to the economy, that tax dollars spent on American products re-introducing that money into domestic rather than foreign markets than the government SHOULD do that.

Those that try to equate the government and its spending to private business and immediately throw out the “capitalist” term are ignoring the fact that the two entities are not equal.
Click to expand...

I am only addressing the Italicized portion:

I believe that comparing the Government to a corporation or a company is completely accurate. I think that the Government presents itself in function and it theory, as a corporation would; with each new Presidency a limited-time brand.

The Government does, essentially, provide us with a common service or good. We have troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan harvesting national security. The CEO of the Government Corporation makes speeches about defense, to continue with this example, all of which will impact the amount the customer will pay. Obama giving a speech is much like that of a CEO giving a speech as there will be a direct and implicit relationship between what is said and the price the customer will pay for the service.
 
Hatuey said:
That is not what protectionism describes though. Protectionism is the action of a government taking active steps to protecting the local economy. Not a company taking active steps to protect itself. If you want to say that the government should protect our economy because you think that using the roads the government builds, VIA rail and medicare somehow makes you a customer of the government. That is fine. But don't try to say that it is not protectionism because it clearly is. Making the government protect our economy violates every rule of free market capitalism.
Click to expand...

Insisting that my money be spent in the United States isn't protectionism.
 
apdst said:
Who's your next source? Keith Olberman?...:rofl
Click to expand...

Are you related to Navy Pride? Because only that sort of person would think it is witty to compare Capitalist Magazine to Keith Olberman. What is next? They're socialists? It is quite funny to watch you not be able to address any topic on the economy above a 3rd grade level.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Are you related to Navy Pride? Because only that sort of person would think it is witty to compare Capitalist Magazine to Keith Olberman. What is next? They're socialists? It is quite funny to watch you not be able to address any topic on the economy above a 3rd grade level.
Click to expand...

I was talking about the author. You do know who Andrew Bernstein is, right?

Or, are you going to continue to spoew BS that doesn't make a damn bit of sense?

Learned how to make gumbo, yet?
 
apdst said:
I was talking about the author. You do know who Andrew Bernstein is, right?
Click to expand...

Why don't you tell us who Andrew Bernstein is and how who he is makes him wrong on the point that was proven to you? Which is that you don't have the first clue about what capitalism or protectionism are...

Andrew Bernstein (born June 29, 1949) is an Objectivist philosopher and professor of philosophy.

Bernstein holds a Ph.D. in philosophy and is the author of The Capitalist Manifesto: The Historic, Economic, and Philosophic Case for Laissez-Faire (University Press of America, 2005) and Objectivism in One Lesson (Hamilton Books, 2009), as well as a novel, Heart of a Pagan (The Paper Tiger, 2002), He also authored the CliffsNotes for Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and Anthem. His op-eds have appeared in publications such as The San Francisco Chronicle, The Chicago Tribune, The Baltimore Sun, The Atlanta Constitution, The Washington Times, The Los Angeles Daily News and The Houston Chronicle. Bernstein has lectured at Harvard University, Duke University, Yale University, Stanford University, the United States Military Academy, Founders College, the University of Southern California, and elsewhere. He currently teaches at Marist College and at SUNY Purchase where, in 2004, he was voted "Outstanding Faculty Member" by the student body. He is affiliated with the Ayn Rand Institute, and is known for his public defense of Objectivism.
Click to expand...

Or, are you going to continue to spoew BS that doesn't make a damn bit of sense?
Click to expand...

Makes sense to people with IQs in the triple digits.

Learned how to make gumbo, yet?
Click to expand...

No time. I read books, work and have things to do.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
It's not, anymore than spending my company's money locally.
Click to expand...

Only that the government is not a company. Private, public or otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom