Slashdot Mirror
The Problem with DHS's Plan to 'Buy American'
An anonymous reader points out a Cnet report on the
Homeland Security Authorization Act, which would require that more than 50 percent of the components in any end product bought by the Department of Homeland Security be produced or manufactured in the U.S., writing "The Pentagon has agreements with 21 countries that waive the act, but an amendment that just passed the House would prevent the DHS from waiving the 'Buy American' restrictions. "The president of the Information Technology Association of America observed that this means the DHS may 'have to learn to do without computers and cell phones,' since he could not think of any manufacturers of those devices that would meet the 50% threshold."
a rather stupid rulling here , If your going to run a department which deals with national security it is in your intrests to use the best avaliable .Arguments on the usefullness of the DHS aside , if they want to perform to peak effiency they must use the best the world has to offer not the best the USA has to offer.
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
i find it sad that our own government agencies are being forced to buy american because they wouldn't otherwise. what does that say about the american economy?
I believe it. It seems we are (sigh) again repeating history. After large battles we temporarily go into short periods of extreme isolationism of one sort or another. This seems to be one of those knee-jerk reactions. Think about when the buy American stuff started (which war was it again? umm, WWII perhaps?). And which cars do we hate the most? (other than Ford, I mean) Oh thats right.. the cars built by our greater adversaries. Ignoring good technology to punish others or to feel self righteous is only self defeating and limits your possible options. This, too, shall pass.
** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
Ah, the horror of cost accoounting.
That $8.00 per item savings translated, in the past two decades, into complete shutdown of the textile and clothing manufacturing industry in the U.S. That meant millions of people thrown into the local Wal-Mart job, if they were lucky, and onto welfare if not. And Wal-Mart exists because it passes its healthcare on to the local state's tax-supported public services -- not to mention the number of Wal-Martish employees who are on food stamps because they aren't paid enough to eat.
That eight bucks cost us our electronics sector, our manufacturing sector, software, it goes on and on.
The "savings" is localized on someone's balance sheet. The cost incurred to generate that savings is measured in ruined careers, disappeared industry, impoverished people, and let's not forget, the almighty national security hole caused by our inability to make our own defense equipment.
The savings in moving our economy overseas goes into few pockets, but the costs come out of all our taxes. And the real costs never show up in the Economist or the cable news shows, because those are paid by the poor and almost-poor, the invisible majority that don't really count.
Those tax savings are lost on the back end.
Since the government buys their equipment using money from the US taxpayers, it seems in the best interests of the taxpayers and the country to keep as much of that money in the country as possible. Consider the following:
The US government outsources everything to companies in other countries - everything from highway construction to phone support to the IRS. Making up a number for the tax rate, call it 40%, that people pay, including the federal taxes in gas, phone service, licensing, income taxes, etc. This means that every year 40% of the countries GDP goes to another country or countries. That reduces the overall "value" of our country by that much. At the other end, if we pay nothing to other countries for services or aid or anything, the "value" of the country remains the same.
Now, I understand that this isn't realistic economically, but it illustrates the point. As a government, isn't it better for their citizens if as much of their expenditures as possible remain in the country? Yes, it is possible that buying from an outside source is cheaper, (for the nation as a whole), than buying locally. (For example, many food crops won't grow in the US and to irrigate/climate control the fields to support those crops would cost more than buying them outright from somewhere else.) However, for a few percentage points difference in the price, I doubt it, since we have to consider income taxes that the country "gets back" by taxing the workers who produce it. (Assuming all other aspects are equal.)With that said, I think it would be better overall to embrace a true global economy, so if someone in India can do a job better/faster/cheaper then they can do it. However, since we don't have a world government, and we still have this annoying habit of killing each other over things like imaginary lines on a map, I don't see any real alternative to being somewhat protective of the country you happen to reside in, whether that is the US, the UK, China or India.
Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
Yes, that's right, and those people are poisoning themselves, particularly in China. The pollution in the industrial cities is so bad that if it goes unchecked, it will, paradoxically, threaten their economic survival. Ruined land and water is no good to anybody.
Tangentially: have you ever driven on I-80 through the Rust Belt? I'm talking about former manufacturing hubs like Buffalo, Gary, and parts of Cleveland. They look abandoned. And the factories? Rusting and abandoned. It's sad, not only because of the unemployment and social upheaval, but because great swaths of that abandoned land cannot be reclaimed for agriculture. The soil and groundwater is too polluted. So the hulks of the factories remain, the rusting monuments to America's fading greatness.
Now, what's really eerie are all of the abandoned strip malls: just boarded-up buildings and weedy expanses of grey asphalt. Nearby, you find housing built in the 40's and 50's, some abandoned by the people who once made their livings in the factories, some filled with poor immigrants, others by retirees who try to keep up appearances and put out their flags on Independence Day. I'm not being lurid here, either. There are a thousand towns like this and they are depressing places. What will become of them?
"OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
I think you and everyone else have missed a major point. What happens if the devices our military depends on are not developed and made in america? Two things:
1. Our military won't be able to keep up with the technical advances of other countries because we no longer produce enough engineers and scientists. All the engineers will be overseas
2. Our national defense will depend on foriegn companies selling us equipment which they may choose not to do at some point in time.
The other thing that struck me (coming from a household that made over 200k a year) was how poor the people working there were. I remember one girl bragging abuot how well she was doing -- she had a dvd player and a ps2.
Which makes her richer than 95% of the world's population. Poverty is relative; as long as there are any differences in wealth, there will be people near the bottom. But the bottom in the US and other developed nations is far higher than the rest of the world, and far higher than it was anywhere 100 years ago. You can thank capitalism for that.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.