War is good for the economy!

[Binder]

Selling all the oil in Iraq, and taking Libya's oil would go a long way in clearing our debt

Yes it would but you and I both know that's not going to happen. Could you just hear all of the "blood for oil" whining?:rolleyes:

 

[nate8887]

Yes but being directly involved creates even more revenues. The US gov is a big customer for these companies also.:cheer:

Correct me if im wrong but, What I am pulling from this is. The government gives Lockheed Martin $38.4 bn and then payes out to there employees 1/2 of that. The company itself brings a 1/4 of profit and the other quarter goes to operating cost for Material/shipping. We are losing half the governments money. If we just sold to foriegn governments all of that would be profit for our economy.

 

[nate8887]

Yes but being directly involved creates even more revenues. The US gov is a big customer for these companies also.:cheer:

France has a lot to lose in this conflict. They are trying to sell thier nuclear power to libya currently. If they can maintain a good relationship with this country when all is said and done then they have alot to gain.

 

[Binder]

Correct me if im wrong but, What I am pulling from this is. The government gives Lockheed Martin $38.4 bn and then payes out to there employees 1/2 of that. The company itself brings a 1/4 of profit and the other quarter goes to operating cost for Material/shipping. We are losing half the governments money. If we just sold to foriegn governments all of that would be profit for our economy.

I can't comment on finances of Lockheed but what do you mean by "the gov gives"? Sounds like a loan to me or is it payment for their (Lockheed) products?

 

[Binder]

France has a lot to lose in this conflict. They are trying to sell thier nuclear power to libya currently.

That's the first I've heard of this but this could be the real reason for the UN bombings.:; I don't think anyone is going to sit by and watch Libya get nuclear weapons nor should they.

 

[nate8887]

I can't comment on finances of Lockheed but what do you mean by "the gov gives"? Sounds like a loan to me or is it payment for their (Lockheed) products?

Payment / Contract. That is an actually contract from 2009. We only get half of what we put out into our economy as far as the cost it took from the government contract which came from the defense budget/taxes. which then equals deficit. I think it is a more stratigic move to let other countrys take the lead for awhile while we recover.

 

[nate8887]

That's the first I've heard of this but this could be the real reason for the UN bombings.:; I don't think anyone is going to sit by and watch Libya get nuclear weapons nor should they.

Not weapons. France has a abundance of nuclear powerplants. These powerplants get shutdown on the weekends and other things because they dont have the need for them. So they are trying to sell electricity to libya. Libya wants it. If they take part in the rebuilding of the country guess what the have? A friend and customer.

 

[Jaydog]

Yes it would but you and I both know that's not going to happen. Could you just hear all of the "blood for oil" whining?:rolleyes:

Imagine what our economy could become if we weren't paying 21 Billion per month just on interest, Iraq should at least give us a wholesale price on their oil, some sort of deal anyhow, but you are right, politicians are about as smart with money as the USFS is about orvs impact on nature :haha:

 

[Binder]

Payment / Contract. That is an actually contract from 2009. We only get half of what we put out into our economy as far as the cost it took from the government contract which came from the defense budget/taxes. which then equals deficit. I think it is a more stratigic move to let other countrys take the lead for awhile while we recover.

So what I'm getting here is you think it's better for our economy if Lockheed had other gov's for customers rather than our own gov because the money doesn't come out of our fed budget? In a perfect world this would be true but Lockheed (and others) are in the business of making money and get customers from wherever they can. If the US gov wants to buy Lockheed's products then why should Lockheed say no? The gov will still buy the products elsewhere.....Likewise if there are customers over seas then Lockheed should go after them if allowed by US law. Lockheed doesn't need to drop US as a customer to provide products for overseas customers...
It's just supply and demand. Business doesn't have absolute control over this.

 

[Binder]

Not weapons. France has a abundance of nuclear powerplants. These powerplants get shutdown on the weekends and other things because they dont have the need for them. So they are trying to sell electricity to libya. Libya wants it. If they take part in the rebuilding of the country guess what the have? A friend and customer.

I see. If Libya gets blown to **** then France will be in a place to sell Libya lots of things.:haha:

 

[nate8887]

So what I'm getting here is you think it's better for our economy if Lockheed had other gov's for customers rather than our own gov because the money doesn't come out of our fed budget? In a perfect world this would be true but Lockheed (and others) are in the business of making money and get customers from wherever they can. If the US gov wants to buy Lockheed's products then why should Lockheed say no? The gov will still buy the products elsewhere.....Likewise if there are customers over seas then Lockheed should go after them if allowed by US law. Lockheed doesn't need to drop US as a customer to provide products for overseas customers...
It's just supply and demand. Business doesn't have absolute control over this.

Im not saying lockheed dumps the U.S., I am sying the U.S. steps back. Does not take the lead, we play more of a cannadian role.

We have all of the hightech defense company's in our country though, So when other country's use them that money goes into our economy. I encourage international trading. It puts good money in our economy, not the bad kind we have to pay back.

We are saying the same thing just not good at communicating:haha:

 

[nate8887]

I see. If Libya gets blown to **** then France will be in a place to sell Libya lots of things.:haha:

EXACTLY!!!!!! Which is most likely why they are taking the lead on it.

 

[nate8887]

SO to sum this up this confict is good because.

War means weapons --> france and other country's need weapons --> us has weapons --> weapons get bought from us defense company's --> money goes into u.s. economy --> more wheeling for us. :cheer:

 

[Binder]

SO to sum this up this confict is good because.

War means weapons --> france and other country's need weapons --> us has weapons --> weapons get bought from us defense company's --> money goes into u.s. economy --> more wheeling for us. :cheer:

:cheer::cheer::cheer:
Now I got **** to build out in the garage.:redneck:

 

[BobR]

The parts where tens of thousands of young men no longer sit on the couch wating for a job opportunity. The part where industry fires up and manufactures more war machines. The part where the gov spends billions on all of these things sparking economical growth.
WW-2 drug our ass out of the great depression.
None of this makes war "good" but it is good for the economy.:;

wouldnt it be better if we built roads and bridges that we can use for years instead of things that go boom and they are gone?








Bob

 

[nate8887]

wouldnt it be better if we built roads and bridges that we can use for years instead of things that go boom and they are gone?








Bob

Infrastucture does not give back to the country.


Foreign trade does.:awesomework:

 

[Jaydog]

wouldnt it be better if we built roads and bridges that we can use for years instead of things that go boom and they are gone?








Bob

On the same note, wouldn't it be better to spend the $21 Billion per month that we currently spend on interest payments, on roads and bridges instead giving it to other countries? :corn:

 

[BobR]

Infrastucture does not give back to the country.


Foreign trade does.:awesomework:

so your time sitting in traffic cannot be called wasted time.
a commercial driver sitting in traffic cannot call it wasted productivity?

better roads could end all this sitting and improve productivity. and the economy would be stronger.





Bob

 

[Bill]

the biggest problem is...is that the gov thinks the answer is rail :wtf:

 

[Jaydog]

High speed rail is for morons with a pipe dream :looser:

so your time sitting in traffic cannot be called wasted time.
a commercial driver sitting in traffic cannot call it wasted productivity?

better roads could end all this sitting and improve productivity. and the economy would be stronger.





Bob

I drive to Lynnwood from Puyallup everyday, and rarely do I sit in traffic, roads won't help the economy, work will, and the only thing that provides work are business'

 

[BobR]

the biggest problem is...is that the gov thinks the answer is rail :wtf:

for SOME things rail is superior. freight for one. it is more fuel efficient, fewer man hrs are needed, AND the necessary infrastructure is far cheaper to build and maintain (about 10% the cost of roads). but its easier to blow up a train track than a freeway.

Bob

 

[Bill]

for SOME things rail is superior. freight for one. it is more fuel efficient, fewer man hrs are needed, AND the necessary infrastructure is far cheaper to build and maintain (about 10% the cost of roads). but its easier to blow up a train track than a freeway.

Bob

thanks Captain Obvious

 

[Binder]

wouldnt it be better if we built roads and bridges that we can use for years instead of things that go boom and they are gone?

Bob

Some things may or may not be "better" but that doesn't change the fact that war is good for the economy.

 

[Jaydog]

Some things may or may not be "better" but that doesn't change the fact that war is good for the economy.

Git R Done

 

[nate8887]

so your time sitting in traffic cannot be called wasted time.
a commercial driver sitting in traffic cannot call it wasted productivity?

better roads could end all this sitting and improve productivity. and the economy would be stronger.





Bob

Your not seeing the big picture. You are looking at internal economy. (economy that is driven by people in the u.s. and is basically just the trading of already produced money or many given out by the government that lowers the dollar bills worth.) We need to boost external economy (have other country's outsource to us) not because we work cheaper but because we are more advanced and our quality is better. :awesomework: Take an economics class then step back to the podium.

 

[Bunk1]

BLOWIN SH!T UP!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRmPv-JEh_w

 

[Trainwreckinseattle]

Some interesting times were livin in.

:eeek:

 

[BobR]

Some things may or may not be "better" but that doesn't change the fact that war is good for the economy.

this sounds like paying people for no apparent reason, like buying windows just to break them.

broken glass and dead people do nothing for the economy other than redistribute the wealth and destroy even more of it.




Bob

 

[whatthe?]

this sounds like paying people for no apparent reason,




Bob

Isn't that what the government does? 911 truther.:haha::haha::haha:

 

[mommatried]

wait ..........I thought you voted for a guy to "redistribute the wealth" and "destroy even more of it" ( the economy)