3 ms·

There is no premium to be paid for boycotting Israel and that fabricated scenario has nothing to do with pro-Israel lobbyist driven first amendment violations.

Manuel_D 4y ago
Any time you reject a segment of the market, you're limiting the pool of available vendors. This obviously applies more to markets with significant presence in the boycotted country. Semiconductors for Taiwant, Israel makes plenty of sensor and software products.
- faxywaxy 4y ago
  The only thing segmenting the market are the anti-BDS laws. You can boycott Israel and still bid on a government contract and let market forces do the work. This isn't an issue of market efficiency though, it's an issue of violating the first amendment.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    Right except a specific country is excluded from that market. A company engaging in a boycott is saying "if the cheapest component comes from an Israeli firm, we're going to pay a prenup to source it somewhere from else." As a taxpayer, I don't want to be paying that premium.
    - faxywaxy 4y ago
      As a tax payer you wouldn't overpay for anything since this has nothing to do with the bidding process.
      - Manuel_D 4y ago
        A boycott is literally saying "we won't bid on x country's products". It means if the cheapest is from a boycotted country then a more expensive product will be bought instead. I'm baffled at the mental gymnastics one has to do to convince oneself thata boycott has no impact.
        faxywaxy 4y ago
        And again, that has absolutely nothing to do with the bidding process.
        Manuel_D 4y ago
        Let's say, absent a boycott companies A B and C place bids of $1000, $1500, and $2000. Then they all decide to boycott a part from a country and the buy a replacement that's $100 more expensive. Then the buds become $1100 $1600 and $2100. Even though the cheapest bid still wins it could have been even cheaper absent the boycott. I, and apparently most voters, don't want to pay that extra money.
        faxywaxy 4y ago
        First of all, voters had absolutely nothing to do with this decision, it was Israel lobbyists. You do realize that Israel is receiving billions of dollars of taxpayer money right? If you were actually concerned about wasted tax dollars, you'd be advocating to cut off their funding. Second, there is zero proof that Israel provides goods at a discount, show your work. Third, in your fabricated scenario, a fourth company would just come in and buy the (fictitious) discounted parts and win the bid. That's how the free market works. You're clearly not arguing in good faith, so this is the end of the conversation for me.
        Manuel_D 4y ago
        > Third, in your fabricated scenario, a fourth company would just come in and buy the (fictitious) discounted parts and win the bid. That's how the free market works. So if there isn't a fourth company, yes there will be a premium paid due to the boycott. Your claim is essentially that if the winning bidders don't engage in the boycott then the boycott will not have an effect. Sure, but if the winning bidder does engage in the boycott, it will have an effect on cost.

Manuel_D 4y ago

Any time you reject a segment of the market, you're limiting the pool of available vendors. This obviously applies more to markets with significant presence in the boycotted country. Semiconductors for Taiwant, Israel makes plenty of sensor and software products.

faxywaxy 4y ago
The only thing segmenting the market are the anti-BDS laws. You can boycott Israel and still bid on a government contract and let market forces do the work. This isn't an issue of market efficiency though, it's an issue of violating the first amendment.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  Right except a specific country is excluded from that market. A company engaging in a boycott is saying "if the cheapest component comes from an Israeli firm, we're going to pay a prenup to source it somewhere from else." As a taxpayer, I don't want to be paying that premium.
  - faxywaxy 4y ago
    As a tax payer you wouldn't overpay for anything since this has nothing to do with the bidding process.
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      A boycott is literally saying "we won't bid on x country's products". It means if the cheapest is from a boycotted country then a more expensive product will be bought instead. I'm baffled at the mental gymnastics one has to do to convince oneself thata boycott has no impact.
      - faxywaxy 4y ago
        And again, that has absolutely nothing to do with the bidding process.
        Manuel_D 4y ago
        Let's say, absent a boycott companies A B and C place bids of $1000, $1500, and $2000. Then they all decide to boycott a part from a country and the buy a replacement that's $100 more expensive. Then the buds become $1100 $1600 and $2100. Even though the cheapest bid still wins it could have been even cheaper absent the boycott. I, and apparently most voters, don't want to pay that extra money.
        faxywaxy 4y ago
        First of all, voters had absolutely nothing to do with this decision, it was Israel lobbyists. You do realize that Israel is receiving billions of dollars of taxpayer money right? If you were actually concerned about wasted tax dollars, you'd be advocating to cut off their funding. Second, there is zero proof that Israel provides goods at a discount, show your work. Third, in your fabricated scenario, a fourth company would just come in and buy the (fictitious) discounted parts and win the bid. That's how the free market works. You're clearly not arguing in good faith, so this is the end of the conversation for me.
        Manuel_D 4y ago
        > Third, in your fabricated scenario, a fourth company would just come in and buy the (fictitious) discounted parts and win the bid. That's how the free market works. So if there isn't a fourth company, yes there will be a premium paid due to the boycott. Your claim is essentially that if the winning bidders don't engage in the boycott then the boycott will not have an effect. Sure, but if the winning bidder does engage in the boycott, it will have an effect on cost.