- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Tired of winning yet?
Posted on 11/30/16 at 3:30 pm to FreddieMac
Posted on 11/30/16 at 3:30 pm to FreddieMac
I've been getting out of bed and feeling like this every morning since November 9.
I can keep winning all the live long day. MAGA!
I can keep winning all the live long day. MAGA!
0
Posted on 11/30/16 at 3:31 pm to Zach
quote:
So, you must really hate Obama?
I have nothing personal against the guy.
Posted on 11/30/16 at 3:32 pm to atekipp
quote:
not an alter, just never posted.
Posted on 11/30/16 at 3:34 pm to atekipp
quote:
That statement strikes at the very core concepts of private ownership (capitalism) vs. state or collective ownership (socialism)
No it doesn't. It might strike at free trade, but the country being more protectionist on trade says nothing about socialism. To conflate those concepts shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what they are to begin with.
Posted on 11/30/16 at 3:37 pm to therick711
quote:
If you don't want to be persuaded, don't take $5.6 billion from the government.
Yep...that $5.6 bn can be redirected to another company. I am sure that is what Trump basically told them....the carrot is tax incentives.
Posted on 11/30/16 at 3:37 pm to atekipp
quote:
That statement strikes at the very core concepts of private ownership (capitalism) vs. state or collective ownership (socialism)
I see where you are trying to make the connection. I just disagree.
Trump (representing the proletariat) is not controlling this company. They are still autonomous and well capable of making their own decisions.
Posted on 11/30/16 at 3:53 pm to therick711
quote:
No it doesn't. It might strike at free trade, but the country being more protectionist on trade says nothing about socialism. To conflate those concepts shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what they are to begin with.
Unfortunately, I think you are conflating and misunderstanding the central ideas. The president-elect utilizing executive branch influence to dictate how a private company should make hiring/firing decisions undermines free market capitalism. Free trade and protectionism are two sides of the central planning coin and are arguably both "roads to serfdom."
Posted on 11/30/16 at 3:57 pm to atekipp
The government is the customer in this case. That's how the free market works. If UT doesn't want to be influenced by their customer, they don't have to take their money. It says nothing of socialism. If UT's biggest customer was Alphabet and Alphabet told them if they outsouce jobs they are taking their account elsewhere, you wouldn't call that socialism. It is the free market at work.
Posted on 11/30/16 at 4:09 pm to atekipp
quote:
offer tax cuts if Carrier stayed (more central planning).
You see allowing corporations the ability to keep more of THEIR money (more freedom) an example of central planning? Wow, that explains a lot! lol
If Im not mistaken, the tax incentive was at the state level.
This post was edited on 11/30/16 at 4:12 pm
Posted on 11/30/16 at 4:44 pm to therick711
quote:
The government is the customer in this case. That's how the free market works. If UT doesn't want to be influenced by their customer, they don't have to take their money. It says nothing of socialism. If UT's biggest customer was Alphabet and Alphabet told them if they outsouce jobs they are taking their account elsewhere, you wouldn't call that socialism. It is the free market at work.
To be more specific, the Department of Defense is the "customer" here. And UT is the "supplier", which also begs the question of why UT's government contracts should be held hostage over operational decisions a wholly owned subsidiary who isnt a government contractor and merely provides air conditioning units to the public for profit.
I guess this also brings up the question of whether we can really reference "free markets" in the context of a president-elect threatening to withhold service contracts directed at a private corporation from a state created entity (more central planning).
While we are on a tangent, this whole discussion ignores the fact that President-elect Trump isnt President yet and also the fact that the President only has "commander in chief" powers granted under Art II, and thus there is a constitutional question on whether the president even has a say in how the DOD subcontracts for its services under the President's Art II powers. A strict orignalist like Scalia would probably say no or maybe he would have said yes, if it was a Republican President, who knows???
So, maybe you are right, the president-elect threatening government contracts even though he may or may not even be authorized to do so, could be free-market economics at work. But it sure doesn't smell like it.
Also, since when does the DoD frown upon outsourcing? The DoD's largest contractor is Lockheed Martin, who outsources extensively throughout its supply chain. Of course Lockheed still has to go through hoops to comply with Export Control Laws and ITAR, but if the culprit here is outsourcing, why isnt everyone up in arms about Lockheed or Halliburton?
Posted on 11/30/16 at 4:54 pm to atekipp
quote:
To be more specific, the Department of Defense is the "customer" here. And UT is the "supplier", which also begs the question of why UT's government contracts should be held hostage over operational decisions a wholly owned subsidiary who isnt a government contractor and merely provides air conditioning units to the public for profit.
"Held hostage," not sure that's quite right. UT had pressure brought to bear on it by its largest customer. In the same way Alphabet could say it doesn't want to do business with a conglomerate because it finds part of its other holdings not in line with its vision.
quote:
I guess this also brings up the question of whether we can really reference "free markets" in the context of a president-elect threatening to withhold service contracts directed at a private corporation from a state created entity (more central planning).
They aren't service contracts as far as I know. There is nothing more free market than voting with the wallet. You just don't happen to think the government should vote with its wallet. That doesn't make it "central planning" or socialist or whatever.
quote:
While we are on a tangent, this whole discussion ignores the fact that President-elect Trump isnt President yet and also the fact that the President only has "commander in chief" powers granted under Art II, and thus there is a constitutional question on whether the president even has a say in how the DOD subcontracts for its services under the President's Art II powers. A strict orignalist like Scalia would probably say no or maybe he would have said yes, if it was a Republican President, who knows???
The President doesn't have to spend any appropriated money. That's part of the executive power vested in him by Article 2, section 1, paragraph 1.
This post was edited on 12/1/16 at 8:39 am
Posted on 11/30/16 at 5:01 pm to atekipp
quote:
not an alter, just never posted.
You should consider going back to lurking. You were pretty good at it.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News