Democrat's Platform

Persuasive. Compelling. Boy, you sure sold me.
Not.

 

Nothing here changes the fact that when you force people to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation,m you place them in a state of involuntary servitude.

 

Good thing that doesn't happen

 

Of course not.

 

One thing we know is that arms production isn't competitive. It is illiberal trade. Crikey, even the make up of the companies has been determined by government mandate. The only real debate, once we factor in expenditure hike for economies of scale, is whether Keynesians or Marxists can explain trends in spending. We know that the military sector is less effective at demand management, but of course that waste is useful in a society characterised with such extreme inequalities.

 

It is very competitive. I have helped prepare proposals for Lockheed Martin and for Eagle Picher. Many of the companies have disappeared because they could not survive.

Let me know about your experience in the field so we can have a rational discussion.

 

I'm not sure how you got this one wrong, but it's the Pubs that have no platform.

 

Democrat's Platform

Orange man bad.

 

Thank you for making it clear I need waste no more time on you.

 

^^^
This is the director's cut version.

 

This amused me. This isn't about personal experience. This is about industrial reality. The industry is characterised by market power, needed to secure economies of scale. The government even mandated the very nature of mergers. To pretend competition really is not credible.

 

In other words, you have no direct knowledge. Only what was fed to you.

 

Yes I guess so. But it certainly dominates the democrat talking points.

 

My point was their platform is a lot shorter than what you said.

 

Your mind is already made up and nothing will change it.

 

Just the bleeding obvious, coupled with the research on the topic. To suggest that an industry, where firms merge because of government dictate, is competitive is laughable.

 

Provide your experience. I worked for a couple of aerospace firms. I participated in the proposal, design and manufacture. Generally, they are making a small number of very sophisticated products which require exceptional engineering and manufacture. All of that is done to very exacting military standards. It is totally unlike any other manufacturing process. Unless you have been there, you cannot possibly appreciate the difficult of what is being accomplished.

 

Again your personal experience is irrelevant. You're making simple error.

How can an industry, with the very firms involved told to merge by the government, be defined as competitive? That is alien to basic economics.

The arms industry is, by its nature, illiberal trade.

 

There are two very large aerospace corporations plus a number of smaller ones. We lost contracts to our competitors. You are basing your opinion on what you read or heard. I was there.

 

I'm basing my comments on facts. Illiberal trade, composed of an industry dictated to by government, is not competitive. Its extraordinarily naive to suggest otherwise.

 

But no actual experience.

 

That you think you can use experience to demand illogical conclusion is indeed a problem. You didn't answer. How can an industry, with the very firms involved told to merge by the government, be defined as competitive?

 

But they are competitive. There are two very large aerospace corporations in direct competition and there are a number of smaller ones. Any of these can bid on a contact. And that is only the aerospace industry. There are other than corporations catering to the military which get military contracts. For example the auto manufacturers. Competition is not limited to those which cater to the military.

 

Oligopolistic industries aren't competitive. Of course its much worse with arms production, given the public-pruvate distinction no longer really exists.

The arms trade is illiberal, by definition. Arguing against facts does you no favours.