Nice explanation, but most political theorists have moved away from the single, linear plane since the 1950s. The Nolan chart shows a x axis which is government control of economy, and a y axis that is government control of government freedom. This is what I was referring to. This is why I was saying that american conservatism is not the same as Fascists, and isn’t on the same plane. And this is where anarchy comes in, anarchy is not to the right, or left, it’s actually at the top (libertarianism), and dictatorships are at the bottom (authoritarian). Anarchy and dictatorships don’t really have anything to do with economic control, it’s irrelevant and can be free market or state controlled. However, they do have direct impact on personal freedoms. Obviously in a anarchy you have as much personal freedom as you want, and with a dictatorship you’re told which type of cereal to eat for breakfast.

I didn’t say I insisted on using left wing or right wing, I’m just saying those are vague terms that have mostly the same meaning in most places.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

Most people who describe themselves as “Liberals” in America are anything but. They are more accurately described as “Progressives” and better described as “Progressive Socialists”, because their own measure of “Progress” is the advancement of Socialist ideals and the subversion and suppression of Liberalism and the existing social order.

Again, in America, this social order is not Liberalism or Democratism but Liberal Democratic Republicanism. Those who seek to prevent the errosion of this social order are called “Conservatives”.

There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor could there ever reasonably be from the perspective of someone who lives and thinks as an American should of be a “Right Wing” or “Conservative” Fascist in the United States. These two ideas are contrary to eachother and cannot become allies in different nations or cultures. Conservative is more flexible, since Conservative is one who preserves the existing social order. One who seeks a return to the old ways, such as Communists in the former Soviet Union are not “Conservatives” but “Regressionists”.

If you insist on using the terms “Left and Right Wing” then you’re acknowledging that they exist on a two-dimensional scale. If this is true, then its a scale of the amount of government a system possesses. If Anarchy, the total absence of government or religious authority of anykind, is Zero, then Totalitarian Theocratic Dictatorships, like Communism, is 100. That means that on the Left side of the scale is 100, and on the right side is 0. All points in between would dictate the level of government intervention in the lives of citizens that that system provided. Libertarianism could be called 20, Democratic Republicanism could be called 30, Fascism could be called 70, Nazisim could be called 80, etc.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

jdun1911 is on the right track about European conservatives being different than American, but it’s not so simple, since it varies from system to system over in Europe. Right-wing and Left-wing are pretty much the same everywhere, but there is a difference in the term “conservative” and “liberal.” For example in Russia, a conservative is someone who believes in the old Soviet system, which is actually left-wing communism. A liberal is someone who believes in western government. Every country and system has a different definition of most political terms, but left-wing and right-wing are pretty much the same everywhere. But as I said, left and right isn’t on a linear scale.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

I have no problems with companies making huge profits. My cousin and I from time to time take about starting our own firearms accessory business. The amount of money that can be make in that area is insane as long as you have a good marketing department.

CMathews

If you want to make money fast like a drug dealer and be legal, the firearms accessory business is the place to be. Pimping your products as a must have or you’ll become a loser has always work in this business.

For the record I like Magpul. They are like the US version of HK. The difference is they don’t sell their products way overpriced, just overpriced and very good customer service.

Magpul started as a mom and pop shop in 1999 with one product magpul. On the back of good marketing skills it became very successful. They marketed their product as must have and if you don’t you will die a horrible death in combat or make believe combat.

They understand that a strong support for and loyalty from civilians will lead to law enforcement/military contracts in the future. Just as Glock did.

You got magpul fanboys suggesting a legal defense fund to help fight back an ARMS lawsuit. That’s what I called brand loyalty to the max.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=2&f=124&t=179232&page=1

Please rate this comment: 0  0

We are talking about a man who personally visited Saddam Hussein (or, as some voices in the Austrian media gleefully allege, one of his body doubles) right before the invasion of Iraq, and whose recent funeral was attended by Saif Qadaffi, son of Lybia’s all-beloved leader.

I actually think that Haider’s former party being the only pro-gun voice in the country should be reason enough for everyone else to start stocking up on weaponry too, because these guys are the last I’d entrust with protecting Austria when TSHTF

Please rate this comment: 0  0

@ Phil Wong

I’m not sure where you get your numbers for market share from, but according to the NSSF, and the ATFs annual guns sales index, they’re almost certainly wrong. The very notion that a single company could simply seize control of the entire pistol market is ludicrous. I seriously doubt that Glock could sell their pistols for less than a High Point, or even a Kel-Tec and still have the presence they have in the industry.
If Glock reduced their prices, they would sell more pistols, but they would not gain a larger percentage of the market share, because no matter how much you may love your Glock 26 it is mammoth compared to a Kel-Tec P3AT or various clones, and a P-32 is smaller than that. If everybody wanted to carry around a 9mm pistol that was the size of a Micheal Crichton (R.I.P.) Novel, they would. I would personally perfer to carry something that I can carry in my pocket, and ain’t no Glocks that meet that description. Maybe if I started wearing baggy pants….
It may also surprise some of you to find that many people out there think Glocks are HIDEOUS and wouldn’t buy one for ANY amount of money. Some people think Plastic is worthless as a firearm material, and won’t buy a gun that’s made from it. Most people think Glock triggers SUCK, which is a cogent observation. Some people don’t like Semi-autos as much as they like Revolvers, myself included in ALL of those categories, but I’m sure that people like myself only make up, like, 1% of the market. That’s why so many 1911s are still being sold, right?
Glocks are easy to work on? So are Chinese Motorcycles. Do you think people buy guns exclusively because they’re easy to modify? Why put $200 worth of parts into a $400 gun when you could buy a gun that cost $550 and already has everything you want in it, like a good trigger and METAL SIGHTS?
At some point, a product can become “Too Cheap”. If it’s so good, why does it cost so little? What’s wrong with it? What corners are they cutting? They old adage “You get what you pay for” is true more often than not, and people are suspicious of something that suddenly plummets in price.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

Thankyou for the enlightenment. Your are right about plastics, excuse me, “polymers” being cheap. I did some molding at my previous college. That 68% just seemed like an awful lot to me, that why I asked for a comparison. H&K also had apple-like fanboys haha

Please rate this comment: 0  0

Everybody: lets get back on topic. Feel free to discuss Mr Glock and Glock the company, not Political Science.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

As for keeping this away from politics and strictly on a corporate level, it sounds like some mighty fishy business dealings to me when elderly hitmen with rubber mallets are sent after you.

I would also imagine that his alledged tax avoidance wasn’t strictly legal either. But why should anyone pay tax anyways, soldiers, cops and fire fighters should work for free.

As for Mr. Glock, his profit margins are good and that’s the only real way to measure an individual’s worth isn’t it? Bernie Madoff also made a lot of profit for himself, you guys must love him also.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

Apple, for example, has incredibly high margins. They don’t bother with low margin products (except the iTunes Store, but that is used to sell more ipods).

Please rate this comment: 0  0

Plastic guns frames are easy to produce. Make a mold, pour melted plastic in it and wait. It is a very inexpensive process to manufacture.

Eyeballing it, it looks like the same amount of plastic is used on handguns as it does for Pmag. Pmag sells for $14 retail so the material plus molding process probably runs $2 max for a complete magazine.

I won’t name names, but this product has been talked on AR15 from time to time. It’s a product that work and solved a fundamental problem that occurs in AR15 SBR.

CRANE found a way to fix the problem inexpensively. It cost around 2 cents each at the local hardware store. A private held company ran with the idea but changes the shape and marketed as a must have for $10+ retail. Both work the same but you got a lot of morons buying the $10+ version and frown on people that use the .02 version. What do you think the margin for that product?

I’ll send you the link Steve.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

Retail buyers complain about 68% reported profit margins as if they are somehow fairly entitled to buy goods at only 10%-30% above the cost of manufacture…that business model only works for industries where a manufacturer is constantly turning over a high volume of units, every day/week/month/year. Since the latest serial-number-prefix I’ve seen was an “M-series” that implies that total production of Glock pistols since the very beginning in 1982-83 is right around 9 million units(and counting).

Sure, 9 million $500 pistols over 27 years sounds like a lot…but, by comparison, how many $800+ desktops and laptops has Dell produced since they started business in 1985? I’m guessing that 9 million units would be ONE good year for Dell – and just what is Dell’s profit margin, anyway?

Of course, that “excessive” 68% profit margin is what actually has to pay for each and every one of the multifarious costs of “overhead” – I’m pretty sure that Glock is not subsidized by either the Austrian or U.S. governments, apart from the continuing purchases of pistols(which have to be competed for and bid on against all the other major gun manufacturers).

Furthermore, there are certain “hidden” costs which have to be budgeted for when a gun manufacturer sets its unit price – for example, the 6%(IIRC) excise tax that BATFE collects from every gun and ammo manufacturer that goes into the Pittman-Robertson fund, which funds wildlife conservation programs across America. Also, I seem to recall reading somewhere(probably in relation to the HUD lawsuits and settlement with S&W) that every gun manufacturer automatically builds in an extra +/-20% margin into the unit price of every gun they make, which goes into a “war chest” that pays for the cost of fighting unmeritorious civil lawsuits.

What consumers should be considering instead, is whether a highly durable, highly reliable, accurate, easy-shooting, rust-proof handgun that also happens to be nationally(if not globally) supported by a network of armorers/gunsmiths and a robust, widespread aftermarket accessories industry is worth paying $500/each at retail…and, guess what, roughly 9 million consumers worldwide have done exactly that. Sure, if Glock wanted to, they could cut their profit margin in half and totally take over the “budget gun” market from Kel-Tec, Hi-Point, Ruger and Taurus…but would it be the SMART thing for them to do? I’m thinking that rather than lose 50% of their profit margin to gain, at best, 30% more market share, Glock would rather keep their niche as the median-priced “volkspistole” that everybody knows about and that has become a de facto industry standard to which all their other competitors are compared…

Please rate this comment: 0  0

“…the xenophobia, militarism and ‘values’ enforcement of the right.”
Yes, none of these things ever existed in any form until the advent of western culture, correct? Please. The Nazis weren’t xenophobic, they were racist. The Soviets certainly weren’t militant, were they? No, all those May Day parades with ICBMs on display in Red Square were actually Piñatas full of candy for the children of the world. When Khrushchev slammed his shoe on the podium and shouted “We will CRUSH YOU!” he meant with a big warm bear hug, not nuclear annihilation, right?

The Nazis were not “White Supremacists” because they killed plenty of white people. They were “Aryan Supremacists”, Aryan being a completely made up concept. Being a White Supremacist, or any kind of racist, does not make you a Nazi, it just makes you stupid. Nearly every White Supremacist I’ve ever met was VERY Left wing.

The Nazis were the NEW thing when they took control, therefore they were not ‘Conservatives’ because they were not preserving an existing order or culture. They were not in favor of Democracy or private property or Civil Rights, so they were not classical Liberals, the beleived in the supremacy of the state and of government control of EVERYTHING. They did not believe in a free market system, but they were a lot more realistic than the Soviets were early on.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

Labor depends on how labour intensive the production is. I imagine taurus is, as you say, labour intensive production – minimum wage in Brazil is less than US$1.50/hour (at current exchange rate).

Please rate this comment: 0  0