0

especially since what Americans call a "liberal", Europeans call a socialist.
The term "conservative" was coined by the left to make rightthinking people look like a bunch of stone age idiots who can't stand "progress". The left call themselves "progressive"...
In reality it's the left that can't stand progress, or rather they want change for the sake of change and only towards goals that have been shown time and again to lead to disaster (world communism, socialised healthcare, massive government, skyhigh taxes, total government control over everyday life, nationalisation of industry, etc. etc.).

... add to this wars, wars, endless wars. That alone makes many rich people. People in charge of things like Halliburton, Blackwater, Boeing, etc. etc etc.

0

@bumsfeld: Mind explaining what your comment has to do with the discussion at hand, other than being a slur against those you've named?

0

@bumsfeld: Mind explaining what your comment has to do with the discussion at hand, other than being a slur against those you've named?

What I read into this (I could be wrong):
It's not difficult to make money, if you have the right connections and pay your tributes. Military hardware, whether the military wants or needs or not, has always been a good money maker. Just look at the stock prices of such companies.

Many countries spend large sums of money on bombs and such, so maybe that is where the money can be made.

0

Military contracts are a double edged sword. They can be profitable but they can come back to bite you.
Many countries over the ages have resorted to nationalising weapons manufacturers in times of tension in order to have cheap and guaranteed access to their products for example.
Usually in such cases there's no compensation for the owners...
OTOH the R&D you can do at (in part) government expense can give you a major edge in your civilian spinoffs and as long as it lasts the sales are profitable. But remember that the market is (or was until the west started destroying their armed forces to save some money) in constant flux. Unless you spend massive amounts of money on R&D (only part of it funded by your customers), product development, and tooling/retooling you're not going to last long. So it's a high risk business, which is the kind of business where high prices are the norm.
The stock price of defense contractors reflects two things:
1) they're large companies with a very diverse product line, thus considered stable. Most of that product line however is not strictly military.
2) they have at the moment a stable customer base with ongoing sales.
As soon as either condition changes they plummet rapidly.

Boeing for example is doing well not so much because of its military departments (though they too are doing well) but the civillian market.
As I said the two are related in that R&D programs and results are often applicable in both, but the stability of the company comes from the civillian sector.

0

jwenting, thanks for the well thought out explanation!

As Lardmeister already hinted, I just wanted to point out the making arms can be very profitable. It could also encourage certain companies to talk government representatives into war through their lobbyists in order to increase these profits. Companies that make cruise missiles might have a keen interest in sending a large number of those into Iran.

0

in america a democrat is a political party, not a type of government. And No, the USA is not a democracy but is a republic. There are no true democracies anywhere in the world. A republican is also a political party. The terms liberal and conservative are also used to mean democrats and republications -- why I have no idea, its a little confusing to many of us too.

Let me clear it up:

- Liberals are liberal in that they want to use the power of government to do more things, taxing and spending more to do them.

- Conservatives are conservatives because the want to use government power sparingly, believing that government does more harm than good.

I don't know what to call the current group of Republicans, because they don't act conservative anymore.

And the Democrat party is not very democratic - they believe that party officials, rather than the voters, should choose the candidates to run in the general election.

Some Democrats also use the fact that they lost the election as evidence that the election was tampered with. They can't believe that a majority would disagree with them.

0

I agree with you. Why the scientists are not trying to solve the basic problem of food , like getting it from air , then we would not require money at all.

0

I agree with you. Why the scientists are not trying to solve the basic problem of food , like getting it from air , then we would not require money at all.

you are kidding right? they could not even do that in the harry potter books. how do you expect to do it with science?

0

I agree with you. Why the scientists are not trying to solve the basic problem of food , like getting it from air , then we would not require money at all.

I'm not sure you are getting enough air yourself....

0

Interesting! If the air is properly poluted, it may contain some food value. Remember, this thread is about making money! To make money, it would be better to starve people and then sell them much needed food.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.