Pink Slip Blizzard

[Pangloss]

I just loved the writing in this story, so I thought it might make a nice opening to a broader discussion about the looming economic downturn/recession. (And wouldn't that subject line make a great name for a punk rock band? The PINK SLIP BLIZZARDS, everone!)

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080202/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy_162

 

In a shower of pink slips, U.S. employers cut jobs last month for the first time in more than four years, the starkest signal yet that the economy is grinding to a halt if it hasn't already toppled into recession.

 

A shower of pink slips! My my!

 

The analysis is accurate, though -- it seems clear that the economy is heading for low ebb of some kind.

 

I suggest our focus should be -- is this the fault of politicians? I don't think you can really escape blame -- the president has forced us to spend a veritable fortune on Iraq, for example, running far over his projected spending on that effort at a time when we're already running a deficit. And congress I think has to accept some blame here as well, on both sides of the aisle, with hidden earmarks approaching the kind of money we're spending on Iraq! Yowsa!

 

But are they culpable for the recession? Or is this just another inevitable, cyclical effect?

[iNow]

Cyclical effects can be adequately mitigated with effective management.

 

[/bumper sticker wisdom]

[Phi for All]

I suggest our focus should be -- is this the fault of politicians? I don't think you can really escape blame -- the president has forced us to spend a veritable fortune on Iraq, for example, running far over his projected spending on that effort at a time when we're already running a deficit. And congress I think has to accept some blame here as well, on both sides of the aisle, with hidden earmarks approaching the kind of money we're spending on Iraq!

Let me ask this first (while I still have a job): wars are usually a pretty big boost to the economy. Has Iraq just gone on too long? The stock market declined pretty rapidly in 2000 (before either invasion) and started coming back after but never back to the where it was in the 90s (admittedly a high-water mark economically). Where was the economic surge war usually brings, or is that not the way modern economics works anymore, with no-bid contracts that keep the billions from being spread around more?

[Pangloss]

Has Iraq just gone on too long?

 

I don't know; it's an interesting question. I wonder if there's actually been a case of war boosting the economy since WW2. Maybe it's just one of those things people say but isn't actually the case. The economy today is so different from what it was in the 1940s, or even the 1960s. A couple hundred billion a year is peanuts in a $3 trillion budget, much less a $14 trillion economy. I have a feeling if you were to ask the economy about the war, it would say "Eh? What?". We're going to have to modify that famous old Everett Dirksen quote to "A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money."

 

BTW, picking on Halliburton is more PC. It's a public company and has to report its earnings. Unless it ressurected and hired Arthur Andersen when I wasn't looking, it's profit margin is about 2% on those no-bid contracts. It's corporate profit is something like 22%, well above average for Fortune 500 companies, so the irony here is that the deal really wasn't so great for Halliburton's investors. Unless, of course, people were secretly stealing from them as well. We all talk about cutting red tape, but if a Republican actually goes out and does so, why, that MUST be corruption. I wonder what we'll call it when Obama gives those deals to Jesse Jackson's companies? Equal opportunity corruption?

[Phi for All]

I don't know; it's an interesting question. I wonder if there's actually been a case of war boosting the economy since WW2. Maybe it's just one of those things people say but isn't actually the case.

This answers my question. I wondered if it might be something that used to be true but no longer is.

 

BTW, picking on Halliburton is more PC.

I still don't get why. Is everything that's too far right or left from center PC in your opinion? Again, I thought PC was being overly sensitive to one group or another. **** sensitive! I don't care how much profit Haliburton makes; the fact is those contracts were written so only one company could possibly fulfill them. And if you make enough in salaries, bonuses and incentives you don't need to show much profit.

 

I still say the question is legitimate and NOT just PC chatter. Would the war have helped us avoid the recession and the flurry of pink slips if the money would have been spread around more?

[iNow]

We all talk about cutting red tape, but if a Republican actually goes out and does so, why, that MUST be corruption. I wonder what we'll call it when Obama gives those deals to Jesse Jackson's companies? Equal opportunity corruption?

 

It's mischaracterative and preemptive statements like you keep making about Obama that the great majority of our country is trying to transcend, Pangloss. It's this virulent and rabid approach to "the others" in government that has kept us behind in so many domains for so very long, and the country is tired of it. Interesting that even people as intelligent as you fall prey to this practice.

 

 

We lost a lot of people at the company I work for about two weeks ago. It's not good...

[ParanoiA]

It's mischaracterative and preemptive statements like you keep making about Obama that the great majority of our country is trying to transcend, Pangloss.

 

No our country is NOT trying to transcend this. Any quick scan of your posts on the subject of religion makes you somewhat hypocritical on this I might add.

 

It's this virulent and rabid approach to "the others" in government that has kept us behind in so many domains for so very long, and the country is tired of it.

 

Now time to support this platitude. Tell me what domain we're behind in because of this.

 

Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but I'm getting this weird "let's all just get along" vibe coming from you. As if there shouldn't be divisiveness in government.

[iNow]

No our country is NOT trying to transcend this.

Really? That's why I think Obama is as popular as he is. He inspires people to come together, and not by attacking others.

 

Any quick scan of your posts on the subject of religion makes you somewhat hypocritical on this I might add.

It's a good thing that a) we're talking about politics, not religion, and b) that I'm not myself a politician.

 

 

Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but I'm getting this weird "let's all just get along" vibe coming from you. As if there shouldn't be divisiveness in government.

Divisiveness is all well and good. However, I think you are elevating the importance of divisiveness when you are instead arguing the importance of the freedom to share alternate perspectives and opinions, as those are what are truly important... actually, the freedom to share them openly.

 

My point is that political attack has become the norm, and not the occasional "much needed breath of fresh air" that it should be. If you disagree, that's fine, but the examples are several in support of my position. (if you require, I'll look later, but I have confidence in the validity of my point that recently politics is more about bashing and self interest than about fixing things and supporting the citizenry)

 

 

Let me summarize my approach to this.

 

Economy is struggling.

Infrastructural economic change must be made to get our country back on track to prosperity.

Political in-fighting and ideological feces throwing is wasting too much of our time.

Get into a room, forget about pandering to some base, put your issues on the table, come together to form a common solution, and go implement it.

 

My frustration is the direct result of not enough solutions being put in place.

 

 

Pink slips are the canaries in the coal mine. At some point, somebody needs to say, "Hey, why the hell are we still mining coal? Let's look into this other thing..."

[Phi for All]

My frustration is the direct result of not enough solutions being put in place.

The two party system insures this. And both parties are beginning to look identical because they're both trying to grab the votes near the center, where most voters are, but not necessarily where you find what most people want. Would there be more voters if people thought they could get better representation and more diverse solutions? I think so.

 

Politics has become a lot like the national chain restaurant industry. With foodservice at that level, it is more important not to offend people than it is to please people. I sold to that industry for 12 years and there is a big difference between what a smaller independent company thinks is important and what the big guys think.

 

In much the same way, the Dems and Reps are more interested in becoming neutral in the eyes of the voters. That way we can vote for the guy / gal we don't hate as much. I think the two party system is dividing this country more sharply than anything. It is used time and again to incorrectly point out that independents don't hold the majority view. This is the ultimate False Dilemma fallacy and we need to realize there are better choices for better representation.

[Pangloss]

I still say the question is legitimate and NOT just PC chatter. Would the war have helped us avoid the recession and the flurry of pink slips if the money would have been spread around more?

 

How does awarding a contract to Halliburton fail to spread it around? Do you mean in terms of awarding the contracts to a wider collection of companies, or in terms of spreading the wealth amongst eventual recipients of the spending that takes place as a result of the contract? (I.E. Joe Smith gets his salary.) I can see the former, but I thought you meant the latter, which seems odd to me because if they're only getting 2% profit then they're spreading it around pretty good.

 

But if you mean applying these contracts to more companies, then it seems like a valid point. The question there is whether other companies were available. It was my understanding that there weren't a lot of choices there.

 

 

It's mischaracterative and preemptive statements like you keep making about Obama that the great majority of our country is trying to transcend, Pangloss. It's this virulent and rabid approach to "the others" in government that has kept us behind in so many domains for so very long, and the country is tired of it. Interesting that even people as intelligent as you fall prey to this practice.

 

Nonsense. I'm not going to be your partisan opposition under an Obama presidency, and you know it. That'll be the Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters. Guys like me are going to give him an even hand. I'm challenging YOU to be even-handed during the election, rather than partisan. I already know I have an open mind. After all, I've voted a roughly equal number of times for Demcorats and Republicans. Can you make the same statement?

 

And I submit to you that demonizing everyone who questions anything that happens under the Obama presidency is going to make YOU the partisan, not the questioners. How did that work out under Bush or Clinton? That's not "transcending" the "domains" of the past, iNow. That's perpetuating the problem.

[Phi for All]

But if you mean applying these contracts to more companies, then it seems like a valid point. The question there is whether other companies were available. It was my understanding that there weren't a lot of choices there.

This is what I meant. And there are plenty of companies available to handle the military's specific needs, and at a far better price because of the bidding process.

 

But because the contracts were written the way they were, no single company other than Haliburton could have fulfilled them. Imo, the fault lies there, requiring one company that could do it all. Usually when you give all your business to one company you get some pretty big savings. The administration seemed anxious to get us over there before anyone could really object that the no-bid contracts funneled all those funds only to to H and all their subsidiaries.

[Pangloss]

Sounds like conjecture to me.

[Phi for All]

Sounds like conjecture to me.

*sigh*

 

I'll post them as I find them:

 

GSM Consulting would have been a great contractor for the oil well fires Haliburton made over 2.5 billion dollars on. From Bob Grace, president of GLM Consulting:

From what I’ve read in the papers, they're [Haliburton] charging $50,000 a day for a five-man team. I know there are guys that are equally as well-qualified as the guys that are over there that'll do it for half that.

 

Savings: $1,250,000,000

[Pangloss]

So says a guy who would have made a pile of money off the deal. Gee, he MUST be right.

 

I don't think no-bid contracts are a good idea either, but the reason I don't think they're a good idea is very different from the reason you (apparently) don't think they're a good idea. The reason you (apparently) don't think they're a good idea is because of cronyism and corruption, which is not a case that you've proven or even demonstrated. The reason I don't think they're a good idea is that they give the impression of cronyism and corruption to bandwagon-hoppers and left-wing ideologues, and aren't generally necessary.

 

But I note that the whole purpose of awarding them at the time was to try and make a difference QUICKLY in a place where speed was of the essence. Why was speed of the essence in late 2003? Because people like yourself were already leaping on the we-need-to-leave-immediately-because-this-cannot-possibly-succeed bandwagon. A bandwagon which, by the way, turned out to be WRONG.

 

So here you sit, after being proven wrong, conjecturing about something for which you have no evidence, when in fact you're the reason we had a situation that cried out for no-bid contracts in the first place.

 

If you wonder why I complain about partisanship in this country, there's a great demonstration right there. That's exactly the kind of ridiculous catch-22 that partisanship produces left and right in this country. It is no longer possible to celebrate any success, achieve any victory, win any goal in this country any more, under any circumstances. Arguments like that one make it IMPOSSIBLE.

 

The legacy of the Bush administration will not be Halliburton and more than it was Monica Lewinsky for Clinton. The legacy of the Bush administration will the the SAME as the legacy for the Clinton administration -- a complete and utter inability to succeed, not because of inability to do so, but because of inability of half the country to accept or even consider the possibility of success.

[ParanoiA]

Asking out of ignorance here...does it really take that much longer for "yes-bid" contracts?

 

Really? That's why I think Obama is as popular as he is. He inspires people to come together, and not by attacking others.

 

I think he's as popular as he is because he's presidential - confident yet humble, solid charisma and he does seem to own the high ground on political conduct. I do believe he would enrich the dignity of the office, no doubt.

 

It's a good thing that a) we're talking about politics, not religion, and b) that I'm not myself a politician.

 

But we are talking about disposition to other's beliefs. "virulent and rabid" might well be appropriate at times, as you've noted.

 

My point is that political attack has become the norm, and not the occasional "much needed breath of fresh air" that it should be. If you disagree, that's fine, but the examples are several in support of my position. (if you require, I'll look later, but I have confidence in the validity of my point that recently politics is more about bashing and self interest than about fixing things and supporting the citizenry)

 

But it's not the political attacking as much as it is the two party driver. There's always been bashing and self interest in american politics, and there certainly has been a coarsening of the culture, and I guess for that matter there's also been parties, but there are also roles to be played here. We need people to duke it out to get the best ideas to float to the top.

 

But, when these people get organized and establish a label and "group up" - then it becomes about the party, and not the citizenry. Let them group up for a particular bill - that's driven by the need of citizenry, but not these permanent good ole boy clubs.

 

So, I'm not interested in flowerly repeats on "coming together" anymore, I want fundamental destruction of the parties.

 

Economy is struggling.

Infrastructural economic change must be made to get our country back on track to prosperity.

 

What do you mean by "Infrastructural" economic change? The only one even referencing that scale is Dr Paul.

 

Pink slips are the canaries in the coal mine. At some point' date=' somebody needs to say, "Hey, why the hell are we still mining coal? Let's look into this other thing..."[/quote']

 

I was listening to Rush for a bit at lunch today and some guy called in and said that we need to get off this "archaic carbon energy". Rush launched into his bit on "facing reality" on our indefinite dependence on oil. Indefinite. The resistance to upgrading from archaic carbon energy is just astonishing to me.

[Pangloss]

I was listening to Rush for a bit at lunch today and some guy called in and said that we need to get off this "archaic carbon energy". Rush launched into his bit on "facing reality" on our indefinite dependence on oil. Indefinite. The resistance to upgrading from archaic carbon energy is just astonishing to me.

 

One of the surest signs of ideological partisanship is an inability to admit when they (or their candidate) are wrong.

[iNow]

Nonsense. I'm not going to be your partisan opposition under an Obama presidency, and you know it. That'll be the Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters. Guys like me are going to give him an even hand.

Well... I hope so, but I certainly don't "know it."

 

I only made a point about it because of a trend I've seen in your posts lately. You seem pissed off overall, like your dog just died or your woman just cheated on you or something... and the only political name you mention in a negative light is Obama's. I sensed that you have been "gearing" yourself up for an Obama win, trying to get all of your attacks in place now for when he wins.

 

If that is a misinterpretation, then clearly that's my fault.

 

 

 

 

But because the contracts were written the way they were, no single company other than Haliburton could have fulfilled them. Imo, the fault lies there, requiring one company that could do it all.

Precisely. This has been in the news more and more. I am waiting for the oversight committees to show us the meat of these claims.

 

 

 

 

Sounds like conjecture to me.

 

So, all of the times this is discussed by those running for president, when they say "I'll end the cronyism and no-bid contracts" ... they are just making it up... using conjecture ONLY to garner support?

 

It's being discussed everywhere, Pangloss. Those who can see the contracts are the ones telling us this is the case.

 

 

 

 

There's always been bashing and self interest in american politics, and there certainly has been a coarsening of the culture, and I guess for that matter there's also been parties, but there are also roles to be played here. We need people to duke it out to get the best ideas to float to the top.

I agree. All I can say is that we tend to focus too much on the "duking" and not enough on the "out." It may have something to do with everyone's addiction to the 24 hour news cycle and information availability online, and they are just feeding the masses what they want... like the sacrifice at the alter...

 

But there's too damned much fighting, and our people are suffering for it.

 

Fighting is fine, as long as there's a winner and a reasonable solution as a result. I'm expressing my frustration with the "fighting for fighing's sake" that seems rampant right now.

 

 

I was listening to Rush for a bit at lunch today and some guy called in and said that we need to get off this "archaic carbon energy". Rush launched into his bit on "facing reality" on our indefinite dependence on oil. Indefinite. The resistance to upgrading from archaic carbon energy is just astonishing to me.

 

And they wonder why the US citizens are talking so much about and grasping so strongly to the concept of change.

 

 

 

 

One of the surest signs of ideological partisanship is an inability to admit when they (or their candidate) are wrong.

 

How is this relevant to the discussion at hand?

 

Which candidate was wrong, what were they wrong about, and who is unable to admit this?

[Pangloss]

I only made a point about it because of a trend I've seen in your posts lately. You seem pissed off overall, like your dog just died or your woman just cheated on you or something... and the only political name you mention in a negative light is Obama's. I sensed that you have been "gearing" yourself up for an Obama win, trying to get all of your attacks in place now for when he wins.

 

Maybe p'd off that I'm inching toward a liberal and I want to understand why. But I stand by my posts as writ -- there's no underlying motive.

 

 

So, all of the times this is discussed by those running for president, when they say "I'll end the cronyism and no-bid contracts" ... they are just making it up... using conjecture ONLY to garner support?

 

Bush said that? I know Obama's said it, and you'd better believe I'll hold him to it, no matter how urgent the need for aid after the next Katrina. But Bush? You'll have to show me that one.

 

But if it's true it's certainly interesinting -- I had no idea. I guess that falls into the same category as "no nation building," eh?

 

 

It's being discussed everywhere, Pangloss. Those who can see the contracts are the ones telling us this is the case.

 

If there's one thing I've learned from the past two presidencies it's that the number of people who believe a thing is no longer relevent to the facts of the case.

 

 

How is this relevant to the discussion at hand?

 

I added a quote to my last post to clarify what it was about. I usually don't bother quoting when I'm responding to what's immediately above my post, but it's a bad habit I really ought to shake.

[john5746]

Let me ask this first (while I still have a job): wars are usually a pretty big boost to the economy. Has Iraq just gone on too long? The stock market declined pretty rapidly in 2000 (before either invasion) and started coming back after but never back to the where it was in the 90s (admittedly a high-water mark economically). Where was the economic surge war usually brings, or is that not the way modern economics works anymore, with no-bid contracts that keep the billions from being spread around more?

 

This is a myth, IMO instigated by America coming out of the depression during WWII. War is a real cost, but more importantly, it is an opportunity cost. I think its the broken window fallacy which explains it best. In short, at least some of the money spent in the war would have been invested in something to increase the GDP. Halliburton, its shareholders and its employees may benefit, but the consumer loses the goods or services that money may have otherwise provided. Assuming they would have pissed it away on something even less useful is incorrect, IMO.

 

 

The advantages to the war is keeping middle east stability(oil) and avoiding terrorist attacks. It can be argued either way that the Iraq war is helping or hurting in these areas.

[iNow]

Maybe p'd off that I'm inching toward a liberal and I want to understand why. But I stand by my posts as writ -- there's no underlying motive.

 

That's fine. I accept that. It just strikes me as curious. A quick search of your posts these past several weeks shows a definite bias toward mention of Obama, and the tone used during said mentions is accusatory and viral, but I'll concede that this is not necessarily intentional. It was just an observation from me, that's all.

 

 

Bush said that? I know Obama's said it, and you'd better believe I'll hold him to it, no matter how urgent the need for aid after the next Katrina. But Bush? You'll have to show me that one.

Since when is Bush running for a third term?

 

The point being, if it's such "conjecture," surely those saying it (and the quote I took came directly from Clinton) would be slaughtered in the media for openly engaging in such unsupported "conjectures."

 

 

If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's probably a rhinoceros, eh?

[Phi for All]

So says a guy who would have made a pile of money off the deal. Gee, he MUST be right.

Correction: half a pile of money. And CBS chose him to interview as a counterpoint. Do you suppose they'd have used his statement if his rate sheet claimed differently?

I don't think no-bid contracts are a good idea either, but the reason I don't think they're a good idea is very different from the reason you (apparently) don't think they're a good idea. The reason you (apparently) don't think they're a good idea is because of cronyism and corruption, which is not a case that you've proven or even demonstrated. The reason I don't think they're a good idea is that they give the impression of cronyism and corruption to bandwagon-hoppers and left-wing ideologues, and aren't generally necessary.

Thanks for the "(apparently)"s. It would have been PC of you to only assume cronyism and corruption are my gripe.

 

Have you ever put together an RFP for a major (6-figure +) contract? It involves a ton of work and research and no one gets paid unless the proposal is accepted. This process keeps competition high and normally forces participants to think of lean and effective measures for completing the work. Sloppy doesn't get paid and gets a black mark for the next RFP. It's a good system that awards good work.

 

The bidding process is greatly eroded when bidders feel someone has an inside track. This alone is pretty bad but when no-bid contracts are awarded the whole process is reduced to a sham.

 

I've put together RFPs and I've done outsourced work for major companies that felt they could increase productivity by farming out work their company wasn't focused for, or that could be done more cost-effectively than using their own people. There is absolutely no reason to outsource if you aren't saving money or increasing productivity.

 

Cheney started outsourcing much of the military's non-combat functions when he was SecDef under Bush I. The problem here is that normal market conditions assume that no single buyer or seller is big enough or has so much clout that they can adversely shape the market. Cheney's maneuver suddenly made the US military the largest and most influential consumer on the planet. Add no-bid contracts to the equation and now there is no savings, there is no confidence in the bidding process, and productivity is compromised by lack of normal market incentives.

 

I dislike mega-corporations in general for much the same reasons. They stifle market creativity and competition. So when a mega-corp like H gets a no-bid contract from the world's largest consumer, I don't think it's conjecture to say that this is NOT a good trend. This is more like market monopoly.

 

But I note that the whole purpose of awarding them at the time was to try and make a difference QUICKLY in a place where speed was of the essence. Why was speed of the essence in late 2003? Because people like yourself were already leaping on the we-need-to-leave-immediately-because-this-cannot-possibly-succeed bandwagon. A bandwagon which, by the way, turned out to be WRONG.

The whole reason?! I doubt that with every fiber of my being. I think the Dopeler Effect had more to do with it.

So here you sit, after being proven wrong, conjecturing about something for which you have no evidence, when in fact you're the reason we had a situation that cried out for no-bid contracts in the first place.

Wow. Nice assumption about the situation requiring no-bid contracts. And by nice I mean bad.

 

If you wonder why I complain about partisanship in this country, there's a great demonstration right there. That's exactly the kind of ridiculous catch-22 that partisanship produces left and right in this country. It is no longer possible to celebrate any success, achieve any victory, win any goal in this country any more, under any circumstances. Arguments like that one make it IMPOSSIBLE.

If I liked either major party I could see the argument for partisanship, but I don't. I am one of those weirdo fiscal Republican / social Democrat types.

 

The legacy of the Bush administration will not be Halliburton and more than it was Monica Lewinsky for Clinton. The legacy of the Bush administration will the the SAME as the legacy for the Clinton administration -- a complete and utter inability to succeed, not because of inability to do so, but because of inability of half the country to accept or even consider the possibility of success.

I think the Bush I / Clinton / Bush II legacy will be that they all sold this country out to big business without competition, globalization through force instead of example, and privatization without sound reason.

This is a myth, IMO instigated by America coming out of the depression during WWII. War is a real cost, but more importantly, it is an opportunity cost.

I'm tending to agree. WWII was unique in that we were coming out of the Great Depression so it was easy for the economy to begin booming.

I think its the broken window fallacy which explains it best.

I did a double-take when I saw the word fallacy associated with the Broken Window theory. And being a big proponent of Broken Window, I'm quite frankly appalled. Broken Window has virtually NOTHING to do with economics except as an indirect result. Broken window is about stopping crime, not about who's buying what from whom.

[Mr Skeptic]

I don't know; it's an interesting question. I wonder if there's actually been a case of war boosting the economy since WW2. Maybe it's just one of those things people say but isn't actually the case. The economy today is so different from what it was in the 1940s, or even the 1960s. A couple hundred billion a year is peanuts in a $3 trillion budget, much less a $14 trillion economy. I have a feeling if you were to ask the economy about the war, it would say "Eh? What?". We're going to have to modify that famous old Everett Dirksen quote to "A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money."

 

The only ways I can see war helping the economy is if the government has to borrow or cut costs to finance the war, or if people have to increase their working hours to produce the war equipment, or if "loot" is gained from the war. Other than that, it would be a negative real cost, and an even larger negative opportunity cost.

 

BTW, picking on Halliburton is more PC. It's a public company and has to report its earnings. Unless it ressurected and hired Arthur Andersen when I wasn't looking, it's profit margin is about 2% on those no-bid contracts. It's corporate profit is something like 22%, well above average for Fortune 500 companies, so the irony here is that the deal really wasn't so great for Halliburton's investors. Unless, of course, people were secretly stealing from them as well. We all talk about cutting red tape, but if a Republican actually goes out and does so, why, that MUST be corruption. I wonder what we'll call it when Obama gives those deals to Jesse Jackson's companies? Equal opportunity corruption?

 

But if Halliburton needs to show very small profit margins on a delicious government contract, they can simply increase the salaries of everyone, hence increasing their costs and lowering their profits. No matter how little something would cost nor how much they are getting paid for it, they can always have very low profit margins if they so choose. With proper bidding, they have to minimize their costs to retain a profit -- hence lower costs, even if the "profit margin" remains the same.

[john5746]

I did a double-take when I saw the word fallacy associated with the Broken Window theory.

 

And being a big proponent of Broken Window, I'm quite frankly appalled. Broken Window has virtually NOTHING to do with economics except as an indirect result. Broken window is about stopping crime, not about who's buying what from whom.

 

Broken windows apparently make good analogies.

 

Broken Window Fallacy

 

The broken window fallacy is dealing with the opportunity lost due to the broken window. Whereas the broken window theory is dealing with the social consequences of not replacing the broken window. The broken window fallacy assumes that the broken window will be replaced.

[Phi for All]

The broken window fallacy is dealing with the opportunity lost due to the broken window. Whereas the broken window theory is dealing with the social consequences of not replacing the broken window. The broken window fallacy assumes that the broken window will be replaced.

That's the link I read. Is the Broken Window Fallacy (economic) saying that the logic in the Broken Window Theory (social) is fallacious? If so, I fail to see the correlation between the two. In fact, if this is the case, it would seem BW fallacy is a Strawman fallacy since BW theory has nothing to do with economics.

[Pangloss]

Correction: half a pile of money. And CBS chose him to interview as a counterpoint. Do you suppose they'd have used his statement if his rate sheet claimed differently?

 

Would this be the same CBS that took an ostensibly 40-year-old typewriter-generated document from a known-to-be-biased source that said it proved that Bush didn't serve his National Guard duty and never noticed that the document was produced in Microsoft Word on the default settings?

 

 

Have you ever put together an RFP for a major (6-figure +) contract? It involves a ton of work and research and no one gets paid unless the proposal is accepted.

 

Oh come on. You can't tell me you've never heard of a competing company arguing that the bidding process was unfair, or complaining that their bid was better. You have no reason to think that his statement is accurate, and quite a huge reason to suspect that it is not.

 

 

Cheney started outsourcing much of the military's non-combat functions when he was SecDef under Bush I. The problem here is that normal market conditions assume that no single buyer or seller is big enough or has so much clout that they can adversely shape the market. Cheney's maneuver suddenly made the US military the largest and most influential consumer on the planet. Add no-bid contracts to the equation and now there is no savings, there is no confidence in the bidding process, and productivity is compromised by lack of normal market incentives.

 

That's right, and the determination of whether or not that was a good idea needs to be based on whether or not it WAS a good idea, not the fact that he was a Republican, the fact that he's had three heart attacks, the fact that he's a mean-spirited monster who eats small babies, or any of the other nonsense the far left spouts on a routine basis, couched as criticism of the no-bid process.

 

 

 

I dislike mega-corporations in general for much the same reasons. They stifle market creativity and competition. So when a mega-corp like H gets a no-bid contract from the world's largest consumer, I don't think it's conjecture to say that this is NOT a good trend. This is more like market monopoly.

 

So you're biased on the subject of whether no-bid contracts are beneficial to the military-industrial process, and predisposed to determine that they're a bad idea regardless of any logic in their favor that may exist. Got it.

 

 

 

But I note that the whole purpose of awarding them at the time was to try and make a difference QUICKLY in a place where speed was of the essence.

The whole[/i'] reason?! I doubt that with every fiber of my being. I think the Dopeler Effect had more to do with it.

 

By all means, doubt away, but when you make a statement like that you're saying you're not interested in any evidence. That makes you partisan on the subject, and renders your opinion on its value irrelevent.

 

And this board wouldn't tolerate it if someone spoke like that about Global Warming ("I doubt that it exists with every fiber of my being" -- yeah, sure iNow would let THAT stand). That makes it an example of political correctness. It is politically correct on this forum to criticize republicans and conservatives, and disallow criticism of global warming and certain other aspects of the progressive agenda.

 

 

Wow. Nice assumption about the situation requiring no-bid contracts. And by nice I mean bad.

 

I didn't say that the situation required it, I said the situation "cried out" for it. The divisive politics of 2003 strongly advised that a no-bid approach was necessary because the country would not tolerate a long presence in Iraq -- BECAUSE of the criticism coming from the left. Can you dispute this on point, or only shoot the messenger?

 

 

I think the Bush I / Clinton / Bush II legacy will be that they all sold this country out to big business without competition, globalization through force instead of example, and privatization without sound reason.

 

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. But your bias on the issue is clouding your judgement. That is simply not how the history books will be written, and they will be written differently because of logic and reason, not irrational, unsubstantiated angst.