Hacker News Reader

Comment by faxywaxy | Hacker News Reader

As a tax payer you wouldn't overpay for anything since this has nothing to do with the bidding process.

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.

And again, that has absolutely nothing to do with the bidding process.

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.

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.

> 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com