Originally Posted by Ebonhawke (Post 12123121)

If he continues/advocates these practices in the Trump administration, it diminishes the accountability of the contractors to provide fair value for service (I know, I'm reaching to say that there's currently that accountability). This is especially true for a President who has touted significant infrastructure spending as part of the revitalization of the economy.

Let's say that he puts out tenders for his 'Wall', and the winning bid is $10B, but he publicly says that the wall will cost $15B. Even if, with overruns etc the final cost is $12B, don't you think the contractor will pad his costs to $14B? It still allows Trump to claim it's under his publicly announced budget (but well over the quoted cost), and it allows the contractor to make a massive profit. The downside is that $2B in padding (and that's taxpayer money) could have been used for other projects, rather than corporate interests. Multiply that over Steve Bannon's $1T infrastructure dream ....

Originally Posted by morpeth (Post 12123107)

The costs imposed on business for medical premiums and compliance costs are quite high especially for lower paid workers.

If a factory has to give medical insurance, it can easily cost $5 an hour per worker. So if worker is hired in between $8.50 to $14 an hour, even with their higher productivity than a foreign worker making $3 an hour hard to compete- and a big element of productivity is the equipment used. If now the foreign factory getting newer equipment, and use of computers means software can be employed equally as well overseas, competition can get pretty tough for the American worker.

Maybe part of the problem is get control of medical costs once and for all.

Originally Posted by johnwoo (Post 12123203)

I am unapologetic of my dislike of Trump, I think he is a vile person. With no redeeming qualities.
As far as Brexit goes, it concerns me very little, I don't live in he UK and don't at present intend to. Brexit does effect me quite negatively, in so much as my UK pension has been reduced, and it limits my escape options should a have to flee the US when it goes belly up.

Originally Posted by Ebonhawke (Post 12123121)

If he continues/advocates these practices in the Trump administration, it diminishes the accountability of the contractors to provide fair value for service (I know, I'm reaching to say that there's currently that accountability). This is especially true for a President who has touted significant infrastructure spending as part of the revitalization of the economy.

Let's say that he puts out tenders for his 'Wall', and the winning bid is $10B, but he publicly says that the wall will cost $15B. Even if, with overruns etc the final cost is $12B, don't you think the contractor will pad his costs to $14B? It still allows Trump to claim it's under his publicly announced budget (but well over the quoted cost), and it allows the contractor to make a massive profit. The downside is that $2B in padding (and that's taxpayer money) could have been used for other projects, rather than corporate interests. Multiply that over Steve Bannon's $1T infrastructure dream ....

Originally Posted by jeepster (Post 12123327)

Free and open markets don't work for the reasons you stated. American workers cannot compete against foreign competition when they have widely divergent compensation, environmental controls on their factories, different healthcare costs, etc. This is mitigated through tariffs. It's not in this country's interest to import a trillion $'s worth of goods every two years. America and England for that matter are slowly committing economic suicide for the benefit of the financial class.

Originally Posted by jeepster (Post 12123337)

If this country can handle the Bush's it can handle anything. The Bush family has been attempting to overthrow the Republic for at least the past 70 years. Read anything by Kevin Phillips published in the last 15 years or wiki Smedley Butler, or google "the unauthorized biography of George Bush".

Trump is the most moderate candidate for President that we've had in a generation but many people don't recognize that because we've had ideologues in office since Ronald Reagan who ushered in the ideological Presidency.

Originally Posted by dakota44 (Post 12123356)

That makes me want to barf. I would like to believe you were joking.

Originally Posted by morpeth (Post 12123363)

It is an interesting question, does Trump have any ideology ?

Originally Posted by dakota44 (Post 12123075)

You would be wrong. The capabilities Boeing refers too are the capabilities that are wanted by the Air Force. This determine what modifications to the basic airframe and performance will be needed. This isn't like the Boeing you travel in. good chunk of the money spent will come back in lower fuel and maintenence costs. The damn planes are more than 30 years old now and will be 40 by the time new ones are ready.

Originally Posted by MidAtlantic (Post 12123609)

I understand and no doubt the Air Force is over specifying as usual. The real cost relates to the design and installation of communications, security etc. not modifications to the airframe. The problem with military procurement is that it operates in a secret world of cosy relationships. If Trump is able to break that open he will have done a good job. The sum recovered in lower fuel and maintenance costs will be minimal because it is used so infrequently.

No one is doubting the need to plan a replacement, it's just that $4 billion (or $3b) is too crazy.

Originally Posted by jeepster (Post 12123337)

Trump is the most moderate candidate for President that we've had in a generation but many people don't recognize that because we've had ideologues in office since Ronald Reagan who ushered in the ideological Presidency.

Originally Posted by Philk (Post 12123644)

so how much should it be? 1billion? 500K? Is 2 billion OK? On what basis are you making the call as to how much it should be?

Originally Posted by MidAtlantic (Post 12123673)

Of course I do not know the answer to that!

I do have experience, as a vendor, of military procurement in the USA, Germany and, to a much lesser extent, the UK. The culture is not one where efficiency and cost effectiveness ranks high.

Just stop and think, $4 billion when the nation is in a financial mess with $19.5 trillion in debt, I don't think so.

Originally Posted by SultanOfSwing (Post 12123685)

The defense budget for 2015 was $597 billion - more than the next 8 world ranked budgets combined, most of whom are allies. Perhaps we should be looking at that before we start worrying about the cost of a new plane.

Originally Posted by MidAtlantic (Post 12123706)

I agree but they have to start somewhere.