A question for American's


CDNBear
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by ToroView Post

Actually, this was easy to find.

The defense companies did not "make" that much.

WalMart's revenues last year was $315.6 billion.

finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=WMT&annual (external - login to view)

Lockheed Martin had $37.2 billion.

finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=LMT&annual (external - login to view)

Northrop Grumman was $30.7 billion.

finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=noc&annual (external - login to view)

General Dynamics had $21.2 billion.

finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=GD&annual (external - login to view)

Raytheon had $21.9 billion.

finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=rTn&annual (external - login to view)

Boeing was $54.8 billion.

finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=noc&annual (external - login to view)

of which roughly half are defense systems

yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/...3564&Type=HTML (external - login to view)

Those are the five largest defense contractors in the United States. No one else comes close.

For example the number six defense company is L-3, with total sales of $9.4 billion.

finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=lll&annual (external - login to view)

Those six add up to $147.8 billion, less than half the sales of Wal-Mart.

Total GDP of the United States is $13.2 trillion. Those six companies sales accounted for 1.1% of US GDP.

http://bea.gov/bea/newsrel/gdpnewsrelease.htm

And since GDP is a measurement of value added, not sales, the contribution of defense to the US economy is even less.


Ok, I won't get snotty, but you missed a few things. You listed "primary" companies. There are "secondary" companies and "terciary" companies. On the surface, you are most right, but the surface is just that, the top. You missed Haliburton btw. You also missed a few dozen other service providers. How about the payroll, to the Troops, the cost of fuel. Please try not to simplify things to fit your agenda.

The military industrial complex, is not just arms my friend. It is a huge industry, encopassing all manner of industries. Your simple example just shows how little people really know about what is going on.

The number I posted is in fact the cost of just the Iraq war. So please explain to us all again how Wal-mart is making more?

Check it out for yourself... nationalpriorities.org/index....per&Itemid=182 (external - login to view)
 
CDNBear
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by I think notView Post

CDNBear
What you are suggesting is another revolution.

In addition, you claim only the rich and powerful run for office. This has not been true for the Presidency or any other public office. You need to check your resources.

Sure, why not. I hear American's complain about their for of Government all the time. In here as well as out in r/l. Go check out some militia sites, lol.

Please give me some credit, I was merely asking a theoretical question. Why or why not?

Name one President, since Eisenhower, that was not financially "well off"?
 
Daz_Hockey
#33
So would you go along with my theory that the declaration was indeed like the Magna Carta CDN?.

In that everyone seems to think it's about democracy and freedom, and that both infact derived from situations when rich landowners/traders/barrons, after a long "bust up" forced those in power to sign a document that made the powers that be agree with their whims, while they declare "it was for the people" unless you look a bit deeper.....

cus ITN seems to be having trouble with this point, surely it's reasonable to assume this?
 
CDNBear
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by Daz_HockeyView Post

So would you go along with my theory that the declaration was indeed like the Magna Carta CDN?.

In that everyone seems to think it's about democracy and freedom, and that both infact derived from situations when rich landowners/traders/barrons, after a long "bust up" forced those in power to sign a document that made the powers that be agree with their whims, while they declare "it was for the people" unless you look a bit deeper.....

cus ITN seems to be having trouble with this point, surely it's reasonable to assume this?


Oh I so know I'm setting myself up for another whoopin'!!

Yes on both accounts.

But they did not plagorize, they re-invented it as a distinctly American document. Its basis may be in the Magna Carta, much like Canada's, but its heart was pure Patriot. Besides, it is one of the most noble historical documents there is.

They were all business men of some sort, it wasn't as if they were millin' around the Olde Towne Pub with the toshers to come up with a new kinda Country. It was for the wealthy, they had the most to loss, not the poor.


Just a side note, seeing as I'm already going to get yelled at again, may as well make it worth it, the Haudenosaunee Constitution, was used as a template for the American Constitution.
 
Daz_Hockey
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Oh I so know I'm setting myself up for another whoopin'!!

Yes on both accounts.

But they did not plagorize, they re-invented it as a distinctly American document. Its basis may be in the Magna Carta, much like Canada's, but its heart was pure Patriot. Besides, it is one of the most noble historical documents there is.

They were all business men of some sort, it wasn't as if they were millin' around the Olde Towne Pub with the toshers to come up with a new kinda Country. It was for the wealthy, they had the most to loss, not the poor.


Just a side note, seeing as I'm already going to get yelled at again, may as well make it worth it, the Haudenosaunee Constitution, was used as a template for the American Constitution.

hehehe exactly, completely agree there, I just find it rather irritating that both documents ah so full of bravado and bang on about these rights being for the people......when they are both nothing of the sort...what both should say is: "we, the select group of people privilledged enough to have the right to sign this document agree that all men are born equal*" "*unless your talking about those nasty peasants or black slaves"
 
CDNBear
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by Daz_HockeyView Post

hehehe exactly, completely agree there, I just find it rather irritating that both documents ah so full of bravado and bang on about these rights being for the people......when they are both nothing of the sort...what both should say is: "we, the select group of people privilledged enough to have the right to sign this document agree that all men are born equal*" "*unless your talking about those nasty peasants or black slaves"

I'm not to sure if I would go that far, but something to that effect. I think they knew they had something special, and wanted to control it themselves.
 
Toro
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Ok, I won't get snotty, but you missed a few things. You listed "primary" companies. There are "secondary" companies and "terciary" companies. On the surface, you are most right, but the surface is just that, the top. You missed Haliburton btw. You also missed a few dozen other service providers. How about the payroll, to the Troops, the cost of fuel. Please try not to simplify things to fit your agenda.

The military industrial complex, is not just arms my friend. It is a huge industry, encopassing all manner of industries. Your simple example just shows how little people really know about what is going on.

The number I posted is in fact the cost of just the Iraq war. So please explain to us all again how Wal-mart is making more?

Check it out for yourself... nationalpriorities.org/index....per&Itemid=182 (external - login to view)

My "agenda"? lol. I have no agenda.

I'm a numbers guy. I have extensive experience analyzing the US economy and the various industries that comprise the economy. Its what I do for a living. And what I know - as anyone who does any work on the US economy knows - the defense industry is a very small portion of the economy.

Its false to equate the spending on the Iraqi war with the sales versus Wal-Mart. Its comparing apples and oranges because you counting things like wages that would be paid anyways, transfers to locals in Iraq, payments for non-American services (which there is many), etc., etc., etc.

You could also say the exact same thing about all the secondary and tertiary industries that surround Wal-Mart - transportation, construction, fuel, etc.
 
cortex
#38
The right to bare arms----thats always puzzled me----. We dont have that in our constitution but no cop has ever harrassed me for wearing t-shirts in the summer.
 
CDNBear
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by ToroView Post

My "agenda"? lol. I have no agenda.

I'm a numbers guy. I have extensive experience analyzing the US economy and the various industries that comprise the economy. Its what I do for a living. And what I know - as anyone who does any work on the US economy knows - the defense industry is a very small portion of the economy.

Its false to equate the spending on the Iraqi war with the sales versus Wal-Mart. Its comparing apples and oranges because you counting things like wages that would be paid anyways, transfers to locals in Iraq, payments for non-American services (which there is many), etc., etc., etc.

You could also say the exact same thing about all the secondary and tertiary industries that surround Wal-Mart - transportation, construction, fuel, etc.


Wages change as wars begin, Troops get danger pay, the masses of assembly line personel get OT.

Why are you trying to minimize the industrial factor of the military machine. It is a known fact wars make money. Wal mart has a set foward momentum, war does not, they can escalate and they can go on for years. Then there are those wonderful "rebuilding" contracts. I'm a Welder/Fitter by license, I made the money I needed to start my own business, by doing large reconstruction contracts, globally. Bin der don dat, so to speak.

The cost of the Iraq war is a direct reflection of the complex at work. Equating a scratch in the MIC, by listing the big names in military munitions and equipment, and totalling their respective profits, then equating them to Wal Mart is more of a fruit based comparison.

Besides you missed Goodyear, the 37"x16" Goodyear Wrangler M/T is a munitions listed product. Up until the HMMWV became a popular civilian vehicle, and the entire unit was delisted. I can do this all day.

It is an agenda. Your agenda is, you do not beleive that the US is a military based economy driven by the MIC.

My agenda, yes it is. War is good business. Any economist will tell you that.

Look, I'm not going to change your mind, I just Thought I'ld post the truth of the matter. I really hate sounding like the conspiracy widbags, lol.
 
Toro
#40
 
Toro
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

War is good business. Any economist will tell you that.

Bear, my man

I talk to economists every single day. I read volumes of economic literature. I have a degree in economics.

Any economist will not tell you war is good for business.

Economists will tell you that government spending can be good for the economy at times when aggregate demand is extremely slack, but military spending is not a particularly efficient way of allocating scarce resources in a modern economy.
 
CDNBear
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by ToroView Post

Bear, my man

I talk to economists every single day. I read volumes of economic literature. I have a degree in economics.

Any economist will not tell you war is good for business.

Economists will tell you that government spending can be good for the economy at times when aggregate demand is extremely slack, but military spending is not a particularly efficient way of allocating scarce resources in a modern economy.


OK, I've been school'd, thanx for the insight.

So what's the point?

If it's not to move money? Why start a fight? Please don't tell me, "Because the ME needs Democracy"

What was Eisinhower warning us about?



See how it's done Gopher/mickeydb, you don't always have to be right.
 
Toro
#43
When Eisenhower said it, military spending was nearly 15% of the economy. It was significant.
 
Curiosity
#44
God Bless Toro....

For knowing his stuff....an expert... a guru.....
 
CDNBear
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by CuriosityView Post

God Bless Toro....

For knowing his stuff....an expert... a guru.....


But, even if Wal mart is making more money then the combined military establishment, does that really negate their influence over political leaders? Their goal is to make more money, no?
 
Toro
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

But, even if Wal mart is making more money then the combined military establishment, does that really negate their influence over political leaders? Their goal is to make more money, no?


Absolutely correct.

A truism about government is that the more reliant your business is on the government, the more money you will spend on lobbying, politicking, corrupting, etc. to secure that business. There is no business more reliant on government than defense.

Other industries that are highly reliant on government are steel, agriculture, forestry, etc. All those industries will attempt to influence government far more disproportionally than their output relative to the total economy.

You also have to put into context where Eisenhower was coming from. All individuals extrapolate their own experiences to the world around them. He spent his entire career in the military then in politics. He was a general in the most important global war in at least the past few centuries. His entire career was spent either selling to the government weapons he felt the military needed, or being sold by the defense companies during a time when the defense budget comprised of half or more of the total US budget. So its not surprising Eisenhower would over-emphasize the military in the context of the broad economy.
 
CDNBear
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by ToroView Post

Absolutely correct.

A truism about government is that the more reliant your business is on the government, the more money you will spend on lobbying, politicking, corrupting, etc. to secure that business. There is no business more reliant on government than defense.

Other industries that are highly reliant on government are steel, agriculture, forestry, etc. All those industries will attempt to influence government far more disproportionally than their output relative to the total economy.

You also have to put into context where Eisenhower was coming from. All individuals extrapolate their own experiences to the world around them. He spent his entire career in the military then in politics. He was a general in the most important global war in at least the past few centuries. His entire career was spent either selling to the government weapons he felt the military needed, or being sold by the defense companies during a time when the defense budget comprised of half or more of the total US budget. So its not surprising Eisenhower would over-emphasize the military in the context of the broad economy.


That, plus, the corruption in American politics, brings me back to the OP and the question, Has the system failed? I'll amend that to ask, Has the system failed its people, by allowing itself to be prostituted to the highest bidder?
 
Curiosity
#48
I think the people are doing just fine....

I know my stocks are - thank you very much - and it's October too.

Perhaps the American government doesn't want to revisit the Great Depression - and the War which lifted them up and out?

Thinking of Governments in terms of "Good" as it relates to people may be an error.
 
CDNBear
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by CuriosityView Post

I think the people are doing just fine....

I know my stocks are - thank you very much - and it's October too.

Perhaps the American government doesn't want to revisit the Great Depression - and the War which lifted them up and out?

Thinking of Governments in terms of "Good" as it relates to people may be an error.


Hmmmm, you know, there are a few people here I really do not wish to offend, you and Toro, are two of them. I have come to respect your opinion. That makes it hard for me to ask questions, I know may result in some form of offence, but here I go anyways,lol.

Why not think of a government in terms like good or bad? We seem to be doing just that in the torture threads. The consensus, seems to be, torture by governments, makes governments bad. Humanitarian aid, makes governments good.

Say the effect of the US's foriegn policy of globalisation, comes back ten fold of 9/11, and you are directly affected by it? Does that not make your government complicit?
 
Toro
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Hmmmm, you know, there are a few people here I really do not wish to offend, you and Toro, are two of them. I have come to respect your opinion. That makes it hard for me to ask questions, I know may result in some form of offence, but here I go anyways,lol.

Hey, dont' worry Bear. I'm not offended.

Nobody offends me here. (Not anymore anyways.) Not even Logic!
 
CDNBear
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by ToroView Post

Hey, dont' worry Bear. I'm not offended.

Nobody offends me here. (Not anymore anyways.) Not even Logic!


I know I let the day to day stresses get to me, and I think I have come on here and taken them out on afew people, from time to time. I'm really working on my issues, lol. But I have gathered who has some "cred" and who the posers are. Yes even Logic is not without some merrit, she gets an "A" for passion and effort.
 
MikeyDB
#52
The presidency of George Bush Jr. has seen more unscupulous and intentional mismanagement than nearly all other men who've held the Presidency.

To imagine that any American who knows that the United States invaded another nation and killed millions on the exaggerations of the Pentagon and the Administration of the Bush Whitehouse, anything to do with the United States can ever be taken at face value.

Many things the United States has done in countries around the world for many years demand a similar scrutiny that has been similarly re-directed by catastrophe and world sculpting events. Clearly the United States commands ownership for the significant share of all the aftermaths created.

And that includes protecting the President....
 
Curiosity
#53
CDNBear

I guess you regard the government as something of a caregiver/caretaker - as they operate in Canada (or the way I recall it was taught to me). For individual caretaking you would have to examine the State governments on a more detailed basis rather than the Feds.

I think the government here just runs itself.... I'm still learning all about it and have no idea which side or where I sit on many of the issues. Should I be "mad" at the U.S.??? I'm in no position to judge.

The U.S. has been great to me and I enjoy a far better position in life than I ever could expect by staying in Canada. But then I believe in working for what I get - and not expecting "government good luck" in any way....I make my own decisions and choose my own path.... I guess I'm more independent now than I would be by staying in Canada. I like it. I learned that here. Nobody ever told me how high I could fly in Canada when I was young.... nobody gave me dreams for a future..... those were all Made in the USA. They create energy in people here and help you find ways to expend
that energy in positive pursuit of goals.

If you wish to discuss good and bad about the U.S. Government, how about mentioning on occasion the good they do worldwide. All I read by Canadians is their "bad foreign policy". Has a catchy ring to it but nobody ever sets it out in logical terms.

I know it's a tough nut for Canadians to acknowledge because their whole identity seems to be locked up in comparisons with the evil empire - but gotta tell you - I know the government are constantly spreading
assistance and uplifting to many nations around the world but we never hear of it.... however I'm not here to defend the U.S.

It ain't easy having a Nag to the North either Bear.... but if it keeps y'all warm at night....go for it...

Offended? After all these years reading Canadian forums.... you're a kitty kat Bear!
Last edited by Curiosity; Oct 21st, 2006 at 03:45 PM..
 
MikeyDB
#54
How about the policies of America bring death to innocent people, or how about Americas policies require subservience on the part of Canadian politicians in the name of "trade" the last great blackmail available.
 
Curiosity
#55
MikeyDB

Let's talk about all the lives the U.S. has saved, have contributed to financially, have commenced trade and commerce with and assisted new countries in establishing their foothold?

You're welcome.
 
MikeyDB
#56
I'm happy (not that you'd probably care) that you're finding life in America rewarding in many respects, you're fortunate to be living there now and not back in the sixties when I lived there.

Americans know that there's trouble on Pennsylvania Avenue, you know Curiosity...

If the only way we can live through this dangerous time is by choosing sides as President Bush has so eloquently re-phrased the gambit, then surely you see the wisdom in being pro-life and pro-freedom and long past time to be killing each other so a few can turn a profit?
 
Curiosity
#57
So MikeyDB

What's the problem here.... you are all over the place with your angst.

Do you hate all the people of the United States or

Do you hate the foreign policy of the United States or

Do you hate the foreign policy of the United States during the current administration or

Do you merely hate George Bush?

So much hate.....a heavy load you Canadians have to carry eh?

I have been hearing about this since 1999 - this "foreign policy" stuff. Nobody can effectively explain it - and it usually winds up in the Softwood Lumber trade issue or natural resources the U.S. is stealing or or or .... we don't know anything about Canada.....

Take a stab ok? And if you don't have time - that's ok too - I can't be bothered reading it all again anyway.
 
CDNBear
#58
Quote: Originally Posted by CuriosityView Post

CDNBear
I guess you regard the government as something of a caregiver/caretaker - as they operate in Canada (or the way I recall it was taught to me). For individual caretaking you would have to examine the State governments on a more detailed basis rather than the Feds.
I think the government here just runs itself.... I'm still learning all about it and have no idea which side or where I sit on many of the issues. Should I be "mad" at the U.S.??? I'm in no position to judge.
The U.S. has been great to me and I enjoy a far better position in life than I ever could expect by staying in Canada. But then I believe in working for what I get - and not expecting "government good luck" in any way....I make my own decisions and choose my own path.... I guess I'm more independent now than I would be by staying in Canada. I like it. I learned that here. Nobody ever told me how high I could fly in Canada when I was young.... nobody gave me dreams for a future..... those were all Made in the USA.
If you wish to discuss good and bad about the U.S. Government, how about mentioning on occasion the good they do worldwide. All I read by Canadians is their "bad foreign policy". Has a catchy ring to it but nobody ever sets it out in logical terms.

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post


I prefer the term "teddy", lol.

I understand you position and totally agree, I can see now that perhaps we Canadians, do tend to over emphasize the faults, and miss the good. The faults make for better sound bites. As you are aware though, I have defended the American point of view, if you are not aware of that, I can point them out to you.

I have always loved my trips to the States, I loved working there and the people were always tops. The patriotism amazes me. I have oft said and been critisized for, saying I wish Canada had the same self respect. Or even a mere percentage of.

I know, it must seem like I'm doing the US, the OP was a tad self righteous sounding, but that was not my intent. Toro and I, are just getting down to the nitty gritty of the issue. Now that he's educated me on a few facts. He hasn't quite got me convinced, but I hope he'll try.

I am well aware of the good the US has done and attemptedto do. I saw it in Somolia, first hand. But that good is so over shadowed by the big shiny sound bites that flood the evening news, that they are almost none existant. That is a shame. On the other hand, the issues that do make the headlines, do raise some concerns. Like you stated earlier, the US does a lot of the worlds dirty work. Gitmo, is but one example. Have you seen the flack I took on that? Now my opinions on that subject, leave a bad taste in some mouths, but they are but my own, and they are based on life experiences. that does legitamise them, but it does in my eyes, give them some credence.

Yes the Canadian Government, does tend to play the "Daddy" figure. I am by no means a socialist though. I believe in pulling ones own weight. Hence my detest of the entire welfare system and the whole molly coddling mannerisms that permiate the Ministrial system.

I managed to find work as a high school student, enlist in the Army, do two tours, get injured, get drunk or high for a few years, get married, do crime, do time, get smart, get clean, get skills, get work, have kids and build my own business and only use a very small portion of the socialist programs that serve to soften the people. At least the US Government strengthens it people, the Canadian, just seems to remove more and more accountablity.

With all that said, accountablity is a two way street, do you think that Governments in general, should be held accountable for their actions, over and above just being voted out of power?
 
MikeyDB
#59
We posted past each other there I'm pretty sure or I would indeed acknowledge that the United States of America has asissted many many people and there can be no question regarding the involvement of Americans in advancing human knowledge across all paradigms. What we're paying for in terms of ideological conflicts is where this notion of how well we are doing confronts the fact that there's a whole greater proportion of the word that doesn't share our experience. That we have contributed to the systems of government and commerce that have established and maintain a horrendous inequity at the expense of the poor. When Clinton destroyed the only amoxycyline factory with a cruise missile we heard that only a few people were killed. What we didn't hear and what we will never know is how many sick children died because there wasn't any medicine to give them?

Abstractions like economics applied to politics somewhere in an overlay consisting of religion with social organizing principles etc. are interesting but there's a real world of consequences accumulating and many that have already accumulated beyond a safe tolerance by anyones metric, including this planets atmosphere.
 
CDNBear
#60
Quote: Originally Posted by CuriosityView Post

So MikeyDB

What's the problem here.... you are all over the place with your angst.

Do you hate all the people of the United States or

Do you hate the foreign policy of the United States or

Do you hate the foreign policy of the United States during the current administration or

Do you merely hate George Bush?

So much hate.....a heavy load you Canadians have to carry eh?

I have been hearing about this since 1999 - this "foreign policy" stuff. Nobody can effectively explain it - and it usually winds up in the Softwood Lumber trade issue or natural resources the U.S. is stealing or or or .... we don't know anything about Canada.....

Take a stab ok? And if you don't have time - that's ok too - I can't be bothered reading it all again anyway.


If I may answer part of your question Curious,

The part of the US's foriegn policy that I have focused on, would be the part that looks a lot like American Globalization, I can provide info, if you are interested. That is generally the part of their foriegn policy that gets them in trouble.
 

Similar Threads

5
Question...
by tooker | Jan 27th, 2008
no new posts