Page 1 of 2
#1
The way that we get weapons is through contracts with companies like Haliburton. I don't understand why. Wouldn't it be more cost effective to manufacture the weapons itself, both saving money and creating more weapons? What am I missing here?
#3
You're forgetting that two members of the DoD Spending Board in the Senate are shareholders in Colt Arms. They got seats on that board about 4 years ago when the US decided to scrap the new standard infantry rifle competition.
#4
I hear most American made products are bad, so American made weapons would probably kill you with laughter.

Edit: v naw I'm just joshing around. I don't really know anything about all that. It's just what I've heard.
Quote by SGstriker
If KFC is finger-licking good, then people would probably suck dicks for Popeyes. That's how good it is.


There's nothing left here to be saved
Just barreling dogs and barking trains
Another year lost to the blue line
Last edited by Joshua Garcia at Jun 4, 2013,
#5
Quote by Joshua Garcia
I hear most American made products are bad, so American made weapons would probably kill you with laughter.


You're on a guitar board saying American Made is bad? On a guitar board. For guitars.
#6
Quote by JustRooster
You're on a guitar board saying American Made is bad? On a guitar board. For guitars.

This comment is only valid if your guns make music.

Acting as a replacement for a really, really loud snare drum does not count.
#7
Quote by Joshua Garcia
I hear most American made products are bad, so American made weapons would probably kill you with laughter.

American made products are made in Mexico.
#8
Quote by triface
This comment is only valid if your guns make music.

Acting as a replacement for a really, really loud snare drum does not count.



Still, to say that America doesn't make some world class firearms just demonstrates a lack of knowledge about firearms.
#10
ts is a dirty commie
Quote by korinaflyingv
On the come up we were listening to Grateful Dead and the music started passing through my bowel and out my arsehole as this violet stream of light. I shat music. It was beautiful.
#11
It's probably more economical to outsource to a company that actually knows what it's doing lol
#12
Private companies work more efficiently than government. It's cheaper. The gun manufacturers compete against each other for government contracts, which ensures that the government gets them at the best price possible.
#13
Because neo-liberalism and liberal market policies.

The USA has always gotten its weapons from another party, as far as I'm aware. I don't recall ever reading (or hearing) about the gouvernment owning weapons factories. Besides, state-owned factories is far too red for the rednecks (lol) to comprehend. They'll be speaking of a communist invasion
#14
The State is just a means to enrich already wealthy shareholders. Why isn't the Federal Reserve operated by the government for that matter?
#15
Quote by Godsmack_IV
The State is just a means to enrich already wealthy shareholders. Why isn't the Federal Reserve operated by the government for that matter?

I don't even think Economists know the answer to that one. Sure, privatizing money could in some theoretical model work, but then you would have to have multiple sources of money like Hayek wanted. Can't be a good system.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#16
It's a socialist conspiracy.
Quote by Vornik
Thanks for the advice. I'm going to put it, along with your other advice, into a book, the pages of which I will then use to wipe my ass.
#17
Quote by Godsmack_IV
The State is just a means to enrich already wealthy shareholders. Why isn't the Federal Reserve operated by the government for that matter?

This guy knows it. Also, why isn't the banking system operated by the government for that matter?
Quote by DarkLiquor
I like you. Compassionate and strong. Glad theres people like you.

"What is the best kind of slave to have? One who does not realize they are a slave"
Wake up people!
#18
If it isn't made by Heckler and Koch it aint worth shooting your dog with!
2011 Gibson Honeyburst LP Trad. w/ SD Whole Lotta Humbuckers
2014 Gibson Ocean Water Standard Plus
Marshall Haze 15W Head/Cab
Hughes & Kettner Tubemeister 5
#19
Quote by Godsmack_IV
The State is just a means to enrich already wealthy shareholders. Why isn't the Federal Reserve operated by the government for that matter?


The fed has 12 appointed members of a board of Governors who are there to ensure that the fed uses its resources for the betterment of the US economy and not just their own financial gain. They pay most of their profits to the US treasury and in that regard act as a sort of quasi-governemental agency.
#21
Quote by RealUnrealRob
Private companies work more efficiently than government. It's cheaper. The gun manufacturers compete against each other for government contracts, which ensures that the government gets them at the best price possible.

This is not true, there is nothing inherent in private companies that makes them more efficient. The price system can make private markets more efficient for consumer goods. However, Fighter Jets are not such a good. What you see instead is a single customer, the US government, so there is no price mechanism. Bidding for the contracts is largely a farce when such vast sums of money are involved as all that happens is that millions get wasted in lobbying politicians for those contracts.

Essentially you get all the downsides of the public sector with all the downsides of the private sector thrown in; along with some corruption for good measure.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#22
Quote by Neo Evil11
I don't even think Economists know the answer to that one. Sure, privatizing money could in some theoretical model work, but then you would have to have multiple sources of money like Hayek wanted. Can't be a good system.

It isn't a good system. It has screwed over the American public multiple times.

Quote by shelovemyguitar
This guy knows it. Also, why isn't the banking system operated by the government for that matter?

Because that's not within the powers given to it by the Constitution. Besides, people really don't want the government having any more control over banks than they already do. Most politicians know they wouldn't last in office if the government took over the banking system.

Quote by zomgguitarz1234
Why doesn't the US government print its own money?

2/10.
Last edited by crazysam23_Atax at Jun 4, 2013,
#23

They can't trust defence workers.
RPD - Finger Pickin' Good
#24
Quote by triface
This comment is only valid if your guns make music.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDlif8Km4S4
There's a special sex move I do called the Charizard.
It's where you light the girls pubes, then put it out with your cum and run around the room flapping your arms screaming, "You don't have enough badges to train me!"
#25
Quote by macashmack
The way that we get weapons is through contracts with companies like Haliburton. I don't understand why. Wouldn't it be more cost effective to manufacture the weapons itself, both saving money and creating more weapons? What am I missing here?


Research & Development, creating a new division, headquarters, hiring staff and tooling a factory is preeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...


...eeeeeeeeety expensive.
#26
Quote by Deliriumbassist
Research & Development, creating a new division, headquarters, hiring staff and tooling a factory is preeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...


...eeeeeeeeety expensive.

It's not like they way they do it now is cheap.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#27
Quote by Lemoninfluence
It's not like they way they do it now is cheap.

I doubt it'd be cheaper to have the government set up 50 or so weapons factories. Not to mention that a lot of those campaign donations from corporations (and not just from weapons manufacturers) would dry up.
#28
Because capitalism and mutually beneficial arrangements
My God, it's full of stars!
#29
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
Because that's not within the powers given to it by the Constitution. Besides, people really don't want the government having any more control over banks than they already do. Most politicians know they wouldn't last in office if the government took over the banking system.

I didn't know it was a Constitution thing. I believe it would be better if the government controlled the banking system. The money they would make could be used back in the society and so on to reduce taxes. I'm no economy expert but I think it sounds good. Of course, the government would have to be absolutely transparent. There could be a sort of agency put in place just to watch it or something.

Also you would be surprised how it's the banks and the federal reserve that have the power on the government, not the opposite. They pretty much run the congress. If you don't believe me a 5 min search will convince you. That's the problem. People don't want the government to have control over the banking system because they're afraid they'd get screwed but that's exactly what's going on right now. The fact that people are always bashing the government is beneficial to the private companies because it gives them more power.
Quote by DarkLiquor
I like you. Compassionate and strong. Glad theres people like you.

"What is the best kind of slave to have? One who does not realize they are a slave"
Wake up people!
#30
Quote by Ur all $h1t
This is not true, there is nothing inherent in private companies that makes them more efficient. The price system can make private markets more efficient for consumer goods. However, Fighter Jets are not such a good. What you see instead is a single customer, the US government, so there is no price mechanism. Bidding for the contracts is largely a farce when such vast sums of money are involved as all that happens is that millions get wasted in lobbying politicians for those contracts.

Essentially you get all the downsides of the public sector with all the downsides of the private sector thrown in; along with some corruption for good measure.


Actually, theoretically at least, the US government as the sole buyer (or monopsonist) can dictate prices to its suppliers. This should (in theory) ensure that prices are kept low as numerous suppliers compete to satisfy the only buyer they have. Similarly, the idea is that private companies who are motivated to increase profits have an incentive to cut costs, not only raise rpices. So (again all theoretically), private corporations should be able to supply weapons more cheaply than the government can produce them itself. But obviously the way governments around the world spend money on defense is incredibly wasteful and riddled with lobbying and corruption so these advantages kind of get lost.

Quote by shelovemyguitar
I didn't know it was a Constitution thing. I believe it would be better if the government controlled the banking system. The money they would make could be used back in the society and so on to reduce taxes. I'm no economy expert but I think it sounds good. Of course, the government would have to be absolutely transparent. There could be a sort of agency put in place just to watch it or something.


This would be a terrible idea. The point of banks is to move capital from places that are unproductive to those that are productive. The incentive for banks to be responsible and smart in how they lend money and borrow money is that if they mess-up, it hurts their bottom line or can even put them out of business, but if they do it correctly they profit.. A government run bank has no such incentive, and would never be punished for being irresponsible with how they operate nor benefit from being well run. The reason that banks have been as irresponsible as they have is because they had an implicit guarantee from the government that they would be bailed out, and a state owned banking sector would have exactly the same problem.

I think what many people need to fundamentally understand is that a bank is not a safety deposit box, but is instead an entity which matches borrowers to lenders.
Quote by Rockstar12345
One does not simply walk onto a Chav's lawn
Last edited by Mechanixx at Jun 5, 2013,
#31
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
It isn't a good system. It has screwed over the American public multiple times.

Which is exactly what Hayek says.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#32
I can't speak for all weapons, but I do know that in the 80's things like missile guidance systems and some other items used by the US military were developed and made in the US.

Sources:
http://www.percsolutions.com/site/Pages/home-page.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litton_Industries
http://www.datametrics.com/customers.htm

In the 80's I worked on electronics for each of these companies.
Last edited by CodeMonk at Jun 5, 2013,
#33
Quote by CodeMonk
I can't speak for all weapons, but I do know that in the 80's things like missile guidance systems and some other items used by the US military were developed and made in the US.

Sources:
http://www.percsolutions.com/site/Pages/home-page.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litton_Industries
http://www.datametrics.com/customers.htm

In the 80's I worked on electronics for each of these companies.

yeah, but they were still private corporations who carried out the work under contract.

I assume the question is why doesn't the US do these things in house? Set up the relevant government departments (or certain branches within the military), employ engineers and develop the weapons themselves.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#34
Quote by Lemoninfluence
yeah, but they were still private corporations who carried out the work under contract.

I assume the question is why doesn't the US do these things in house? Set up the relevant government departments (or certain branches within the military), employ engineers and develop the weapons themselves.


Yeah, true.
My guess why the military itself doesn't build this shit at official military facilities is cost.
When I worked at Litton, they only paid me $9 hr (Which in 1981 was actually a fairly decent wage).
But damn, they had a hell of a health plan, 100% coverage, ZERO copay for ANYTHING, ZERO deductible.

The big problem with those sort of contract arrangements was, when the contract was over, a lot of people got laid off. But in that era, I could get laid off on a friday, and be working at another military contractor by the following tuesday.

And hey, I'm 53. I'm allowed to ramble on and be nostalgic.
Last edited by CodeMonk at Jun 5, 2013,
#35
Quote by Godsmack_IV
The State is just a means to enrich already wealthy shareholders. Why isn't the Federal Reserve operated by the government for that matter?

The fed requires some semblance of independence otherwise you'd have a vested interest to continually produce money and inflation. Same reason why legislative and executive arm are not one and the same
| (• ◡•)| (❍ᴥ❍ʋ
#36
Quote by Godsmack_IV
The State is just a means to enrich already wealthy shareholders. Why isn't the Federal Reserve operated by the government for that matter?



Yeah, sure, why not.
'They do a wonderful with our tax dollars.
#37
Quote by magnus_maximus
Because that's socialism, almost the very definition of it.

EMBRACE IT, YEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSS, COME TO THE RED SIDE, YEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSS

The government would only own the means of production for it's weapons, which makes sense because private companies who make weapons can start wars so that they can sell their weapons. That's what happened in "The Whole Truth".
#39
Quote by CodeMonk
Yeah, sure, why not.
'They do a wonderful with our tax dollars.

And having a bunch of foreign backers for the Fed doesn't help matters either, man.
#40
Quote by Mechanixx
This would be a terrible idea. The point of banks is to move capital from places that are unproductive to those that are productive. The incentive for banks to be responsible and smart in how they lend money and borrow money is that if they mess-up, it hurts their bottom line or can even put them out of business, but if they do it correctly they profit.. A government run bank has no such incentive, and would never be punished for being irresponsible with how they operate nor benefit from being well run. The reason that banks have been as irresponsible as they have is because they had an implicit guarantee from the government that they would be bailed out, and a state owned banking sector would have exactly the same problem.

I think what many people need to fundamentally understand is that a bank is not a safety deposit box, but is instead an entity which matches borrowers to lenders.

Except banks can loan more then they actually have, inb4 creating money. When you create money, it's value goes down. Same thing with the federal reserve, they can create money to keep us in a position where we will always need money.

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
Henry Ford
Quote by DarkLiquor
I like you. Compassionate and strong. Glad theres people like you.

"What is the best kind of slave to have? One who does not realize they are a slave"
Wake up people!
Last edited by shelovemyguitar at Jun 5, 2013,
Page 1 of 2