Forums

BMT 580 01 396 - Management Systems

Date:

From:

To:

Political Supply Chains There are 3 replies: View/Reply options

Joel Patrick Forck Students

Political Supply Chains Original post: Sun 3/4/2012 at 10:53 PM

Firstly, I complete reject the entire premise that the project asserts regarding terrorism and what not. Though it may be true that there were banks that laundered money for the 9/11 attacks (I'm assuming there's no substantial proof of this), the United Arab Emirates has been nothing but a friend to the U.S. during their war on terror. The same goes for Qatar, another oil rich country. Take a look at both countries' infrastructures since 9/11 if you want to know whether or not they're a friend of the U.S (Super rich...go see Mission Impossible 4 for evidence of this). That being said, I also completely reject the idea of having the U.S. Government regulating who gets to win or lose in the market place. To me, that is the same as economic fascism, otherwise known as corporatism. When the government gets involved, using means of forceful coercion, the legitimate market suffers in the long run because the government does not have the ability to determine the best company to run the ports. The government only has the ability to forcefully choose who should run the ports based not on who will most positively affect the marketplace, but who will most benefit the interests of whoever it is in the U.S. government who is making the decisions. It should be up to the individual business as to whether or not they want to run a business operation when there is a threat of attack by rebel groups in the region they plan to operate in. It is the same here in the U.S. A businessman may want to start their business in a certain area, but once they realize there is a violent threat to the business in that area, they will most likely wisely choose to relocate or rethink their particular business strategy. Anyways, my basic point is that, in my opinion, the federal government has no authority to regulate trade whatsoever, and their doing so only creates a negative snowball affect for the economy. The supply chains in the U.S. will only be affected because the federal government thought it a good idea to put the U.S. economy at risk by arbitrarily determining who should have control over important trade ports. I apologize to anyone who has to read this, by the way. If you could not tell, I have a very strong opinion regarding matters like this.

Christy Lyn Brookins Students

Re: Political Supply Chains Posted: Mon 3/5/2012 at 7:02 PM, in reply to Joel Patrick Forck

Joel Patrick Forck wrote:

Firstly, I complete reject the entire premise that the project asserts regarding terrorism and what not. Though it may be true that there were banks that laundered money for the 9/11 attacks (I'm assuming there's no substantial proof of this), the United Arab Emirates has been nothing but a friend to the U.S. during their war on terror. The same goes for Qatar, another oil rich country. Take a look at both countries' infrastructures since 9/11 if you want to know whether or not they're a friend of the U.S (Super rich...go see Mission Impossible 4 for evidence of this). That being said, I also completely reject the idea of having the U.S. Government regulating who gets to win or lose in the market place. To me, that is the same as economic fascism, otherwise known as corporatism. When the government gets involved, using means of forceful coercion, the legitimate market suffers in the long run because the government does not have the ability to determine the best company to run the ports. The government only has the ability to forcefully choose who should run the ports based not on who will most positively affect the marketplace, but who will most benefit the interests of whoever it is in the U.S. government who is making the decisions. It should be up to the individual business as to whether or not they want to run a business operation when there is a threat of attack by rebel groups in the region they plan to operate in. It is the same here in the U.S. A businessman may want to start their business in a certain area, but once they realize there is a violent threat to the business in that area, they will most likely wisely choose to relocate or rethink their particular business strategy. Anyways, my basic point is that, in my opinion, the federal government has no authority to regulate trade whatsoever, and their doing so only creates a negative snowball affect for the economy. The supply chains in the U.S. will only be affected because the federal government thought it a good idea to put the U.S. economy at risk by arbitrarily determining who should have control over important trade ports. I apologize to anyone who has to read this, by the way. If you could not tell, I have a very strong opinion regarding matters like this.

When researching the matter, I found that Pres. Bush was in favor for UAE to take over the ports. The reason for his support was just what Joel said. That UAE needed to be supported because they were supporting the Allies. I do agree that at times support should be mutal. I also agree that if the Union did happen, the companies who did not agree with the union could use the ports not controlled them. This is America- choices are options. If you don't like it go with someone else.

Aaron Virgil Woolridge Students

Re: Re: Political Supply Chains Posted: Tue 3/6/2012 at 8:50 PM, in reply to Christy Lyn Brookins

Christy Lyn Brookins wrote:

Joel Patrick Forck wrote:

Firstly, I complete reject the entire premise that the project asserts regarding terrorism and what not. Though it may be true that there were banks that laundered money for the 9/11 attacks (I'm assuming there's no substantial proof of this), the United Arab Emirates has been nothing but a friend to the U.S. during their war on terror. The same goes for Qatar, another oil rich country. Take a look at both countries' infrastructures since 9/11 if you want to know whether or not they're a friend of the U.S (Super rich...go see Mission Impossible 4 for evidence of this). That being said, I also completely reject the idea of having the U.S. Government regulating who gets to win or lose in the market place. To me, that is the same as economic fascism, otherwise known as corporatism. When the government gets involved, using means of forceful coercion, the legitimate market suffers in the long run because the government does not have the ability to determine the best company to run the ports. The government only has the ability to forcefully choose who should run the ports based not on who will most positively affect the marketplace, but who will most benefit the interests of whoever it is in the U.S. government who is making the decisions. It should be up to the individual business as to whether or not they want to run a business operation when there is a threat of attack by rebel groups in the region they plan to operate in. It is the same here in the U.S. A businessman may want to start their business in a certain area, but once they realize there is a violent threat to the business in that area, they will most likely wisely choose to relocate or rethink their particular business strategy. Anyways, my basic point is that, in my opinion, the federal government has no authority to regulate trade whatsoever, and their doing so only creates a negative snowball affect for the economy. The supply chains in the U.S. will only be affected because the federal government thought it a good idea to put the U.S. economy at risk by arbitrarily determining who should have control over important trade ports. I apologize to anyone who has to read this, by the way. If you could not tell, I have a very strong opinion regarding matters like this.

When researching the matter, I found that Pres. Bush was in favor for UAE to take over the ports. The reason for his support was just what Joel said. That UAE needed to be supported because they were supporting the Allies. I do agree that at times support should be mutal. I also agree that if the Union did happen, the companies who did not agree with the union could use the ports not controlled them. This is America- choices are options. If you don't like it go with someone else.

I agree with Joel's point that the government shouldn't be involved in this. I'm not sure what an alternative option is though? I don't see how it's an option for the individual companies to choose if they want to get supplies from a port that is ran by the UAE or UK. I am making an assumption (which might get me in trouble), but these companies have a business model of getting supplies cheaper by importing them to the US from the UK. If this model would change from the UK to UAE and a businesses would decide not to do business with the UAE this would have drastic, if not catastrophic, changes to how their business runs. This could lead to companies losing significant profits which has a large impact on the economy.

At the same time we live in a free market and if the company would sacrifice profits because of a port maybe they should fold. Well until we bail them out ...

Sarah Ellen Munns Students

Re: Political Supply Chains Posted: Thu 3/8/2012 at 1:12 PM, in reply to Joel Patrick Forck

Joel Patrick Forck wrote:

Firstly, I complete reject the entire premise that the project asserts regarding terrorism and what not. Though it may be true that there were banks that laundered money for the 9/11 attacks (I'm assuming there's no substantial proof of this), the United Arab Emirates has been nothing but a friend to the U.S. during their war on terror. The same goes for Qatar, another oil rich country. Take a look at both countries' infrastructures since 9/11 if you want to know whether or not they're a friend of the U.S (Super rich...go see Mission Impossible 4 for evidence of this). That being said, I also completely reject the idea of having the U.S. Government regulating who gets to win or lose in the market place. To me, that is the same as economic fascism, otherwise known as corporatism. When the government gets involved, using means of forceful coercion, the legitimate market suffers in the long run because the government does not have the ability to determine the best company to run the ports. The government only has the ability to forcefully choose who should run the ports based not on who will most positively affect the marketplace, but who will most benefit the interests of whoever it is in the U.S. government who is making the decisions. It should be up to the individual business as to whether or not they want to run a business operation when there is a threat of attack by rebel groups in the region they plan to operate in. It is the same here in the U.S. A businessman may want to start their business in a certain area, but once they realize there is a violent threat to the business in that area, they will most likely wisely choose to relocate or rethink their particular business strategy. Anyways, my basic point is that, in my opinion, the federal government has no authority to regulate trade whatsoever, and their doing so only creates a negative snowball affect for the economy. The supply chains in the U.S. will only be affected because the federal government thought it a good idea to put the U.S. economy at risk by arbitrarily determining who should have control over important trade ports. I apologize to anyone who has to read this, by the way. If you could not tell, I have a very strong opinion regarding matters like this.

Agree with Joel it is in the best interest of the United States government to not be the sole decision makers of who regulates our ports. Too much government regulation can be a huge detriment to to the United States citizens.