I think some Asian firms have tried predatory pricing in areas like steel with the help of their governments.
You might be thinking of tariffs imposed on foreign steel imports by the Bush Administration in the early 2000s. As I recall, those tariffs were aimed primarily at cheap steel from Russia & a couple of the former Soviet republics, although some Asian manufacturers might have been involved.
The tariffs were billed as a measure to save American jobs in the domestic steel industry. Unfortunately, they jeopardized other American jobs in the appliance industry, which relied on cheap imported steel to keep American-built appliances competitive with Asian appliances. That's why the earliest & loudest screams of protest against the steel tariffs came from other American manufacturers.
That alone should show you that tariffs often do as much harm as good.
In the end, our government backed down after the EU threatened to retaliate with its own tariffs on American agricultural products, of which Europe is a hugely important customer, & manufactured products. The EU tariffs would have cost us far more jobs than our steel tariffs would have saved, so the Bush Administration wisely withdrew the tariffs 2 years earlier than had been planned originally.
I believe China and Korea also tried dumping steel here. You are right that tariffs can be tricky, or political sops. The government, like business, sometimes doesn't think things through on a long run perspective either. Tariffs can also lead to unfair competitive advantages to US companies if not carefully weighed leading to higher domestic prices. However, if a country is trying to deliberately employ predatory pricing to hurt domestic industries, or if a country is badly hosing American companies though unfair import restrictions or stealing proprietary rights; forget the tariffs and just outright restrict their ability to do business here until the matter is fairly resolved. It seems like too often it is difficult to find a middle road until you wield a big stick. Reagan showed this approach works if used judiciously. Our principle should simply be "fair" business practices. I'm certainly not against imports as long as the playing field is relatively level and fair.
As for China though, I have major concerns about their government: 1) They manipulate currency and prop up their home businesses while discriminating against imports and stealing intellectual propertry to give them unfair trade advantages.
To be fair, many countries allow for the theft of intellectual property. It isn't just China, and in some cases, our "allies" have been caught doing it.
Yes, China is guilty, but I'm not going to single them out on it.
2) Too much of their stuff still seems to have quality issues that are sometimes even harmful and dangerous.
Very true. Especially the lower cost goods. In many ways. I think its as much of an internal issue with graft and corruption within China moreso than a deliberate act supported by the legitimate government of China.
3) China is forging strong relationships with countries that are openly hostile toward the US and looking to damage our country and its citizens.
Again, China isn't the only country in this boat. Every country has the right (and does, usually) what they feel is in their best interest.
I may be able to understand Venezuela. I don't think its really about oil because when you add in the distance and the special refining equipment and costs for their heavy crude China probably loses money on it. Rather I believe it is their [non-permissible content removed] for tat against our Taiwan policies. But Iran and North Korea are a different story. China has enough clout to muzzle North Korea, but instead supports them strongly.
Actually, N. Korea amounts to what Mexico is to the US. Dirt poor, corrupt government looking out for itself above the country's population, and over-populated for the available resources. The last thing China wants is for N. Koreans to start coming to China in huge numbers.
But, IMO, you are correct tying N. Korea to Taiwan. I feel sure the "N. Korea problem" would go away tomorrow if we agreed to give China a free hand in Taiwan. And, this "bartering" has been going on between countries for centuries. Cuba is another example.
There is plenty of oil available beyond Iran. I have to view those Chinese relationships as anti American pure and simple.
I suspect its much more "pro China" than "anti American". Again, every country has the right to seek what it feels is in its own best self interest. Without the US market, China's economy collapses. I doubt the Chinese government sees that possibility as being good for China.
However, if a country is trying to deliberately employ predatory pricing to hurt domestic industries, or if a country is badly hosing American companies though unfair import restrictions or stealing proprietary rights; forget the tariffs and just outright restrict their ability to do business here until the matter is fairly resolved.
In an earlier post, you seemed to be willing to leave this decision to individual consumers, which is how I would like to see it handled, given my deep distrust of government.
Are you now saying that the government should substitute its judgment for mine?
Something else to consider: even if you think that a particular pricing practice is predatory, you still have to consider it from the consumer's perspective. As Murray Rothbard points out in his anti-protectionism essay:
In trying to stop this trade, protectionists are trying to stop American consumers from enjoying high living standards by buying cheap and high-quality [imported] products. Instead, we are to be forced by government to return to the inefficient, higher-priced products we have already rejected. In short, inefficient producers are trying to deprive all of us of products we desire so that we will have to turn to inefficient firms. American consumers are to be plundered.
It's not at all obvious to me that that workers in a particular industry should take precedence over consumers. Classic free-market capitalism teaches us that the customer comes first, & that the company that best serves customers most deserves to prosper.
If trade barriers force me to pay more for a car, then I will have that much less money to buy American-made goods produced by other industries. While I'd like to see a Michigan auto worker keep his job, I'd much rather support jobs in my own state. Protectionist measures deprive me of the right to make that decision.
I think the difference is that I don't believe retaliating against a country that is deliberately trying to hurt your economy is protectionism. I think it protecting your country from economic warfare. However, I believe that those actions are relatively few in the bigger trade arena and the government shouldn't generally engage in general protectionism unless there are compelling national interests or defense involved. There are a few, and I emphasize a few, situations that can arise that have larger, potentially strategic implications far beyond what most individual consumers may comprehend. Destroying companies that are critical to national defense is an example of what I'm talking about.
I think you let China off way too easily. China appears to have been tied to much of the computer hacking going on in this country. China deliberately attacked one of our unarmed aircraft, damaged it and stole its equipment. China also appears to be assisting Iran in its nuclear efforts. Is China's real concern about North Korea collapsing when much of the fallout will more likely impact South Korea? Perhaps China is actually more concerned about Korea emerging as an economic competitor, and one that allows greater personal freedoms and human rights for their citizens. Bordering a unified and free Korea might make the Chinese less tolerant of their government's abuses and totalitarian practices.
Personally, I think the US markets become far less relevant to China's economy within the next decade as Asia continues developing. Short term they may need us, but longer term we may in their way.
I think you let China off way too easily. China appears to have been tied to much of the computer hacking going on in this country. China deliberately attacked one of our unarmed aircraft, damaged it and stole its equipment. China also appears to be assisting Iran in its nuclear efforts.
Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, I wasn't "judging" China, only stating the obvious.
As for Iran, there are many who wish to only look at Iran today, and ignore how and why Iran became so unfriendly to the US. Do a bit of reading and learn how the Shah rose to power, as well as how he was able to remain in power as long as he did, and how he treated his own subjects while in power.
"As for Iran, there are many who wish to only look at Iran today, and ignore how and why Iran became so unfriendly to the US. Do a bit of reading and learn how the Shah rose to power, as well as how he was able to remain in power as long as he did, and how he treated his own subjects while in power."
Like the Iranians are better off under their current government, and now it uses its proxies Hamas and Hezbollah to export violence and terrorism. But what the heck, we'll just blame America for all of this too. Sorry, just stating the "obvious".
Chinese built autos are very much relevant to the topic. To turn a worm, since foreign makers building in the US makes them a native US auto, US makers building in China makes the Chinese autos an American product as well. To wit, Buicks!!!
I went back to post #1 and this thread started out talking about people in the US buying "American" cars.
But like all threads, we've morphed all over the map over 4 years of posts. So a bit of "off-topic" content should be tolerated. If Buicks stopped selling in China, it would mean something to US car buyers. Anything that affects GM's bottom line could affect our buying choices here.
That said, the stuff about the Pahlavi dynasty in Iran does seem a bit far afield.
Not to mention there are some who are working to have Chinese vehicles sold in NA, eventually it will be reality. China is a very appropriate topic for an automotive industry-trade themed thread. The cat is out of the bag.
I think Rothbard also had some wild ideas about the privatization of national defense and some others that would create pretty much a corporate state.
Well, don't you think that national defense is largely a corporate matter now? Isn't that what President Eisenhower warned us about 50 years ago in his famous speech about the military-industrial complex?
In any case, the defense budget would be much smaller under a libertarian government - not that I expect to see one in my lifetime - because libertarians don't think that American taxpayers should have to foot the bill for the defense of other countries. Taxpayer-funded foreign aid would also come to an end, although individual citizens could voluntarily send money to their favorite countries/international causes if they wanted to.
You have a problem with..."the floggings will continue until morale is restored"???
The point was (and is)...
One must first understand the history of what happened in order to understand why things are the way they are today, be it foreign government behavior, automobile manufacturer mis-management, etc.
Those who simply wish to start out by taking today's "snapshot" of what "is" today (and at the same time, disregarding what "was") provide an excellent example of why there is so much resentment against the Big-3 supporters (and the auto worker unions).
To understand how to get where you wish to go, one must first understand how he got to where his is currently. Anyone refusing to do that is doomed to failure, unless he is outstandingly lucky.
It's in good part corporate - especially as corporations have huge influence over who becomes politically viable, but I don't see anything becoming better simply by allowing it to fall to complete and total unlimited irrevocable corporate control. That's the kind of world Rothbard and his devotees would create. Perhaps his saving grace was a level of isolationism. Just as we shouldn't aid and defend others, we shouldn't let social and environmental criminals compete here on a level playing field. There's China again.
So I can send my money to any cause I want? Invest in Hamas, IDF, and AlQaeda concurrently and see who gives me the best return, even if they work against where I live? Now that's off topic for ya
Like the Iranians are better off under their current government, and now it uses its proxies Hamas and Hezbollah to export violence and terrorism. But what the heck, we'll just blame America for all of this too. Sorry, just stating the "obvious".
Once again, I'm not placing blame on anyone.
All I suggested was that you do a bit of research to gain a better understanding of the situation.
To a large segment of the US population alive at the time, Iran didn't exist until the Hostage "Crisis" under Jimmy Carter happened. To them, it was totally unprovoked, and all Iranians were crazy Islamics.
Be aware, however, that there are many in the Middle East that say the US has done the same thing (exporting terrorism). I doubt you agree with that assessment, and that's OK. You're entitled to your opinion.
Personally, I feel there's more than enough blame to go around. And, until someone stands up and starts acting like an "adult", I don't see any changes coming.
"Personally, I feel there's more than enough blame to go around. And, until someone stands up and starts acting like an "adult", I don't see any changes coming. "
The shah was several decades ago. Foreign relations were more tilted toward mercantilism then. The US has made efforts and gestures to gain a new beginning with Iran, but the current Iranian government prefers to use the US as a "Satan" to stir up their citizens and justify their abuse of power. I don't disagree that history can provide some insight and information. However, you must be careful because the world changes and sometimes history isn't always relevant to the current and future as it was in the past. I'm sorry, but to lay all this Iranian hassle and blame heavily on the US is a bunch of hooey. To equate America to the terrorism carried out by Iran and its operatives like Hezbollah is a little over the top to me. Everyone makes mistakes, but when countries in the world face disaster the US is usually first in line to help. Come to think of it, you never seem to hear about wealthy oil countries like Iran making any significant financial contributions... and personally, I'm not so sure that a lot of Iranian citizens are all that loving of their current government either. In fact, while you are doing your research, check out the number of Iranians that emigrated to America.
Wouldn't a lack of government simply allow corporations to take 110% total power? I don't see less government = less corporate rule. One or the other is going to be the dictator. A power vacuum never lasts longer than the blink of an eye.
Blackwater would simply become government. Government didn't create the warmongering policies without special interest appeal. The corporat farming firms would also simply become government. As government enables corporations, corporations give orders to government. One begets the other. You get the laws you pay for.
So I can send my money to any given terrorist or criminal cause, and it's fine? Eevn if it works against where I live? Wild. I don't see corporate cowards as having any greater ability than public sector empty suits to determine what is best. One or the other WILL have power, whether anyone likes it or not.
Perhaps these were secretly made by "Government Motors" at the time and the rescue managed by GM managemrnt as well....another failure of our government.
All kidding aside though, Did you know that the Army Chinook helicopter is one of the most difficult aircraft to fly in the military with one of the longest pilot flight instruction programs?
>"Those who simply wish to start out by taking today's "snapshot" of what "is" today (and at the same time, disregarding what "was") provide an excellent example of why there is so much resentment against the Big-3 supporters (and the auto worker unions)."
A lot of the resentment towards unions is because those that are out of work and those that don't make the kind of money of union workers are expected to support the "Entitled" unions.
A lot of the resentment towards unions is because those that are out of work and those that don't make the kind of money of union workers are expected to support the "Entitled" unions.
That's the way I see it. I think unions might be necessary, to a degree, at least in some fields, just to keep the companies in check. But, when the unions have TOO much power, as we've witnessed with the auto industry, some abusive teachers unions, and so forth, it wreaks havoc.
Just like everything in life, go too far left or too far right, and someone gets screwed. The balance is somewhere in the middle, but we keep missing it!
I guess one small consolation though, is that if you're out of work and not bringing in a paycheck, you're also not paying taxes, so then you're not supporting those entitled unions. :sick:
And if you're under-employed, you're really not paying taxes, either. I've read somewhere that something like 40-50% of the American workforce either pays no federal taxes at all, or actually gets money back! And I don't mean they just get a refund come tax time; they actually get back EVERYTHING they paid in taxes, and sometimes more! They still pay SS/Medicare taxes, and most likely state/local taxes, and of course, sales taxes, but just not federal.
If that happens, you can cross Cadillac off my shopping list permanently. I'd have no problem with Cadillac produced in the U.S. being exported to China. Besides, they probably already have a counterfeit Kaddilak CBS to compete against the Mirsadys-Bens Chin-E-Class.
Well, they finally have a leader at Cadillac that calls a spade a spade:
DETROIT — General Motors' new CEO told employees that the automaker needs to make cars and trucks that are better than those of competitors such as BMW.
Akerson used BMW as an example, saying that GM's Cadillac luxury brand has to make cars that are better than BMW's 300, 500 and 700 series sedans.
Through August, BMW has sold 139,236 vehicles, beating Cadillac by almost 47,000 cars and trucks, according to Autodata Corp.
No, did not know that. Just an example of bad execution that mirrors GM.
At the end of the day, bad management in a corporation, an army or a country is very apparent despite the rhetoric and excuses supported by the unknowing.
At the end of the day, bad management in a corporation, an army or a country is very apparent despite the rhetoric and excuses supported by the unknowing.
...and I'm afraid all too pervasive in this country right now as well.
DETROIT — General Motors' new CEO told employees that the automaker needs to make cars and trucks that are better than those of competitors such as BMW.
Akerson used BMW as an example, saying that GM's Cadillac luxury brand has to make cars that are better than BMW's 300, 500 and 700 series sedans.
Through August, BMW has sold 139,236 vehicles, beating Cadillac by almost 47,000 cars and trucks, according to Autodata Corp.
Amazing that it took GM 30 years to figure that out. I could have told them that for only $5M, a fraction of what Wagoner was paid over the years!
That it took so long for someone to say it out loud to the union is what surprises me...no, wait...doesn't surprise me, since we are talking that "UAW mentality"...IQ below 80, floorsweepers expecting to be paid $35/hour, you know the rest...
"UAW mentality"...IQ below 80, floorsweepers expecting to be paid $35/hour, you know the rest...
Wow. I've never been a union employee and no one in my family is/was. But for someone who I'm sure considers themselves 'enlightened', that sure is painting with a broad (and I might add, narrow minded) brush.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
The number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty is on track for a record increase with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to the national war on poverty.
Census figures for 2009 — the recession-ravaged first year of the Democrat's presidency — are to be released in the coming week, and demographers expect grim findings.
It's unfortunate timing for Obama and his party just seven weeks before important elections when control of Congress is at stake. The anticipated poverty rate increase — from 13.2 percent to about 15 percent — would be another blow to Democrats struggling to persuade voters to keep them in power.
"The most important anti-poverty effort is growing the economy and making sure there are enough jobs out there," Obama said Friday at a White House news conference. He stressed his commitment to helping the poor achieve middle-class status and said, "If we can grow the economy faster and create more jobs, then everybody is swept up into that virtuous cycle."
Interviews with six demographers who closely track poverty trends found wide consensus that 2009 figures are likely to show a significant rate increase to the range of 14.7 percent to 15 percent.
Should those estimates hold true, some 45 million people in this country, or more than 1 in 7, were poor last year. It would be the highest single-year increase since the government began calculating poverty figures in 1959. The previous high was in 1980 when the rate jumped 1.3 percentage points to 13 percent during the energy crisis.
Among the 18-64 working-age population, the demographers expect a rise beyond 12.4 percent, up from 11.7 percent. That would make it the highest since at least 1965, when another Democratic president, Lyndon B. Johnson, launched the war on poverty that expanded the federal government's role in social welfare programs from education to health care.
Demographers also are confident the report will show:
_Child poverty increased from 19 percent to more than 20 percent.
_Blacks and Latinos were disproportionately hit, based on their higher rates of unemployment.
_Metropolitan areas that posted the largest gains in poverty included Modesto, Calif.; Detroit; Cape Coral-Fort Myers, Fla.; Los Angeles and Las Vegas.
"My guess is that politically these figures will be greeted with alarm and dismay but they won't constitute a clarion call to action," said William Galston, a domestic policy aide for President Bill Clinton. "I hope the parties don't blame each other for the desperate circumstances of desperate people. That would be wrong in my opinion. But that's not to say it won't happen."
Lawrence M. Mead, a New York University political science professor who is a conservative and wrote "The New Politics of Poverty: The Nonworking Poor in America," argued that the figures will have a minimal impact in November.
"Poverty is not as big an issue right now as middle-class unemployment. That's a lot more salient politically right now," he said.
But if Thursday's report is as troubling as expected, Republicans in the midst of an increasingly strong drive to win control of the House, if not the Senate, would get one more argument to make against Democrats in the campaign homestretch.
The GOP says voters should fire Democrats because Obama's economic fixes are hindering the sluggish economic recovery. Rightly or wrongly, Republicans could cite a higher poverty rate as evidence.
Democrats almost certainly will argue that they shouldn't be blamed. They're likely to counter that the economic woes — and the poverty increase — began under President George W. Bush with the near-collapse of the financial industry in late 2008.
Although that's true, it's far from certain that the Democratic explanation will sway voters who already are trending heavily toward the GOP in polls as worrisome economic news piles up.
Hispanics and blacks — traditionally solid Democratic constituencies — could be inclined to stay home in November if, as expected, the Census Bureau reports that many more of them were poor last year.
Beyond this fall, the findings could put pressure on Obama to expand government safety net programs ahead of his likely 2012 re-election bid even as Republicans criticize him about federal spending and annual deficits. Those are areas of concern for independent voters whose support is critical in elections.
Experts say a jump in the poverty rate could mean that the liberal viewpoint — social constraints prevent the poor from working — will gain steam over the conservative position that the poor have opportunities to work but choose not to because they get too much help.
"The Great Recession will surely push the poverty rate for working-age people to a nearly 50-year peak," said Elise Gould, an economist with the Economic Policy Institute. She said that means "it's time for a renewed attack on poverty."
To Douglas Besharov, a University of Maryland public policy professor, the big question is whether there's anything more to do to help these families.
The 2009 forecasts are largely based on historical data and the unemployment rate, which climbed to 10.1 percent last October to post a record one-year gain.
The projections partly rely on a methodology by Rebecca Blank, a former poverty expert who now oversees the census. She estimated last year that poverty would hit about 14.8 percent if unemployment reached 10 percent. "As long as unemployment is higher, poverty will be higher," she said in an interview then.
A formula by Richard Bavier, a former analyst with the White House Office of Management and Budget who has had high rates of accuracy over the last decade, predicts poverty will reach 15 percent.
That would put the rate at the highest level since 1993. The all-time high was 22.4 percent in 1959, the first year the government began tracking poverty. It dropped to a low of 11.1 percent in 1973 after Johnson's war on poverty but has since fluctuated in the 12-14 percent range.
In 2008, the poverty level stood at $22,025 for a family of four, based on an official government calculation that includes only cash income before tax deductions. It excludes capital gains or accumulated wealth. It does not factor in noncash government aid such as tax credits or food stamps, which have surged to record levels in recent years under the federal stimulus program.
Beginning next year, the government plans to publish new, supplemental poverty figures that are expected to show even higher numbers of people in poverty than previously known. The figures will take into account rising costs of medical care, transportation and child care, a change analysts believe will add to the ranks of both seniors and working-age people in poverty.
The number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty is on track for a record increase with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to the national war on poverty.
Hmm, and what was the Detroit 3's market share back then? I wonder how there could be so much poverty during the 60's when manufacturing jobs were supposedly plentiful for everyone.
The poverty rate in 1959 was over 22%. I guess those days weren't so good after all.
But then again, like any statistics, who knows if the numbers used back then are comparable to those used today.
The poverty rate in 1959 was over 22%. I guess those days weren't so good after all.
Again, I guess it's all about where you live (lived). I can say unequivocally, my hometown has been decimated by the movement of manufacturing to other countries, resulting in more poverty and fewer professional people living there.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
So where did you find this? Don't you think that you should credit the author? Posting stuff without giving credit is a form of plagiarism.
Next time, just give us a link. Only newbies copy & paste like this.
Geez, it isn't even after midnight! (or was that busiris...I mix you two up).
I have noticed that when somebody posts something that rankles you, instead of addressing it square on, you either divert to something completely unrelated or tell the person how unenlightened they are.
What's next..."I know I am but so are you?"!!
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Again, I guess it's all about where you live (lived). I can say unequivocally, my hometown has been decimated by the movement of manufacturing to other countries, resulting in more poverty and fewer professional people living there.
My hometown is far more affluent now than when I grew up in the '70's and 80's even though the near by steel mills don't employ nearly as many as they did in the 70's.
Basically, I found it ironic that this topic is "Buying American cars what does that mean" and back when the Detroit 3 probably had its peak market share, the US had record high poverty levels.
Sorry to come across as so harsh, but I've been online since the glory days of the proprietary services back in the 80s. (Does anyone remember GEnie & CompuServe - also known as Compu$erve because of its steep hourly rates?)
Anyway, the online community, which was much, much smaller in those days, had a pretty well-defined sense of right & wrong. Back then, forum sysops would slam you mercilessly for quoting without attribution - rightfully so, IMO.
If I'm not mistaken, appropriating someone else's work as your own has been considered wrong since the invention of the printing press, if not earlier. If something's happened to change that, no one thought to copy me on the memo.
No, that's what GM is saying to Hyundai after taking the executives that were successful at the Korean automaker and loosing the August sales lead in the sedan segment! :P
Nah, just struck a nerve on the sensitive side of ULG.
He'll calm down after a time....
I like to do it like this and then post the link to the entire article...
Both governments will sell some of their shares immediately so that their respective taxpayers can begin to get repaid. Full repayment would require the new GM to have a total market capitalization of about $70 billion, which is nearly 30% more than the company's peak market cap of a decade ago.
That's daunting, but there's more. Ford Motor's total market value is only $41 billion, even though Ford didn't go bankrupt. And its first-half earnings of $4.7 billion were more than double the $2.2 billion earned by General Motors.
So how can GM be worth more than Ford? Especially since General Motors now has its fourth chief executive officer in 20 months and hasn't clearly explained its corporate strategy. It has also gone through multiple marketing chiefs and other key executives.
I did a quick google. search using the first sentence.
It's the same article I linked a few days back. It was posted on AP. I theorized I wouldn't see it mentioned in our local newsrag print paper because it glares badly on the Obama administration's last two years.
"But for someone who I'm sure considers themselves 'enlightened', that sure is painting with a broad (and I might add, narrow minded) brush."
You said you have not been part of a union...but have you spent any TIME in the presence of their members, specifically the UAW???...I did, for 10 years, in the belly of the beast, Detroit...granted, I am expressing my opinion, based on my own observations and things they said and did, plus knowing many non-UAW folks in Detroit, and the anger they expressed at their UAW neighbors...those folks were one step above dragging their knuckles on the ground, sorry if my descriptions bother you...
But when you see them think, look and act like lemmings, it is easy to paint them with a broad brush, simply because it is true...maybe I am enlightened and maybe I'm not, but a decade in Detroit was VERY educational in terms of UAW people...they are what they are, like it or not...
I don't have the cite (I never do) but someone recently posted a link to an article which I believe was UAW-oriented (maybe not)...the union would not compromise so they simply closed the plant (was it NUMMI?) and they all lost their jobs, and one union member, a woman, I believe, was quoted as saying, "At least we didn't give in" or something like that...
So, let me get this staright...rather than compromise a few bucks an hour and keep a job that probably paid them far in excess of what the job was worth (probably floorsweeping and shelf stocking at $35/hour plus benefits) they stood their ground, AND THEY ARE NOW UNEMPLOYED WITHOUT ANY JOB...and I am supposed to call this intelligent???...do you???
Does that attitude explain why unions are a problem, and why they are shrinking???...if my employees had that attitude for ONE DAY, I would close my plant (if I had one, of course) and move it out of the country in a week...then, I would disassemble the plant brick by brick, and UPS one gift-wrapped brick to the home of each former employee, thanking them for their worthless work attitude, and then send them update photos of the new plant being built in Brazil, or maybe under the Arctic ice, which would still be more profitable with non-UAW labor...
Believe me, the US auto industry will survive, and when the UAW is gone, the industry will thrive...
in small print it said assembled in theUS. Like if I bought a bike made in China that comes in a box. I take it out of the box and attach the handlebars and front wheel. That makes it 'assembled in the US' and so then 85% of the value stayed in the US right?
The US has half as many manufacturing jobs today as in 1970.
The population is up 70 million in that time, so we consume far more manufactured goods. Where do they all come from? 40 million Americans are now on food assistance from the US gov.
Japan wont even buy soy sauce from us. Now they plant soybean in the vacant land at their Ohio factories and all those empty part containers that came in from Japan filled with trannies, radios, air bags and pcm's? They go back to Japan filled with beans. that way the US can't even sell soy sauce to a country without farmland and Japan makes a profit in the return of the containers to Japan for more hi value auto parts.
Yeah, a company that shrewd has it so 85% of the value of that Honda stays in the US. Look how good our economy is doing since it went to 85%.
The US has half as many manufacturing jobs today as in 1970.
The whole world has lost manufacturing jobs due to productivity. The manufacturing facilities present in the US produce more today than they did in 1970, were are far more productive.
As far as Japan, their economy has been faltering for over 20 years, so while we can blame our ills on them, they are far from being in good shape.
That makes it 'assembled in the US' and so then 85% of the value stayed in the US right?
That depends I guess. You could have paid where you bought it to assemble it. I assembled my own computer last year. Spent 3 hours assembling and trouble shooting. Certainly not an efficient method as I would have been far more productive doing something I am efficient at. Our economy shouldn't waste resources on activities we are not efficient at either.
Comments
You might be thinking of tariffs imposed on foreign steel imports by the Bush Administration in the early 2000s. As I recall, those tariffs were aimed primarily at cheap steel from Russia & a couple of the former Soviet republics, although some Asian manufacturers might have been involved.
The tariffs were billed as a measure to save American jobs in the domestic steel industry. Unfortunately, they jeopardized other American jobs in the appliance industry, which relied on cheap imported steel to keep American-built appliances competitive with Asian appliances. That's why the earliest & loudest screams of protest against the steel tariffs came from other American manufacturers.
That alone should show you that tariffs often do as much harm as good.
In the end, our government backed down after the EU threatened to retaliate with its own tariffs on American agricultural products, of which Europe is a hugely important customer, & manufactured products. The EU tariffs would have cost us far more jobs than our steel tariffs would have saved, so the Bush Administration wisely withdrew the tariffs 2 years earlier than had been planned originally.
1) They manipulate currency and prop up their home businesses while discriminating against imports and stealing intellectual propertry to give them unfair trade advantages.
To be fair, many countries allow for the theft of intellectual property. It isn't just China, and in some cases, our "allies" have been caught doing it.
Yes, China is guilty, but I'm not going to single them out on it.
2) Too much of their stuff still seems to have quality issues that are sometimes even harmful and dangerous.
Very true. Especially the lower cost goods. In many ways. I think its as much of an internal issue with graft and corruption within China moreso than a deliberate act supported by the legitimate government of China.
3) China is forging strong relationships with countries that are openly hostile toward the US and looking to damage our country and its citizens.
Again, China isn't the only country in this boat. Every country has the right (and does, usually) what they feel is in their best interest.
I may be able to understand Venezuela. I don't think its really about oil because when you add in the distance and the special refining equipment and costs for their heavy crude China probably loses money on it. Rather I believe it is their [non-permissible content removed] for tat against our Taiwan policies. But Iran and North Korea are a different story. China has enough clout to muzzle North Korea, but instead supports them strongly.
Actually, N. Korea amounts to what Mexico is to the US. Dirt poor, corrupt government looking out for itself above the country's population, and over-populated for the available resources. The last thing China wants is for N. Koreans to start coming to China in huge numbers.
But, IMO, you are correct tying N. Korea to Taiwan. I feel sure the "N. Korea problem" would go away tomorrow if we agreed to give China a free hand in Taiwan. And, this "bartering" has been going on between countries for centuries. Cuba is another example.
There is plenty of oil available beyond Iran. I have to view those Chinese relationships as anti American pure and simple.
I suspect its much more "pro China" than "anti American". Again, every country has the right to seek what it feels is in its own best self interest. Without the US market, China's economy collapses. I doubt the Chinese government sees that possibility as being good for China.
In an earlier post, you seemed to be willing to leave this decision to individual consumers, which is how I would like to see it handled, given my deep distrust of government.
Are you now saying that the government should substitute its judgment for mine?
Something else to consider: even if you think that a particular pricing practice is predatory, you still have to consider it from the consumer's perspective. As Murray Rothbard points out in his anti-protectionism essay:
In trying to stop this trade, protectionists are trying to stop American consumers from enjoying high living standards by buying cheap and high-quality [imported] products. Instead, we are to be forced by government to return to the inefficient, higher-priced products we have already rejected. In short, inefficient producers are trying to deprive all of us of products we desire so that we will have to turn to inefficient firms. American consumers are to be plundered.
It's not at all obvious to me that that workers in a particular industry should take precedence over consumers. Classic free-market capitalism teaches us that the customer comes first, & that the company that best serves customers most deserves to prosper.
If trade barriers force me to pay more for a car, then I will have that much less money to buy American-made goods produced by other industries. While I'd like to see a Michigan auto worker keep his job, I'd much rather support jobs in my own state. Protectionist measures deprive me of the right to make that decision.
I think Rothbard also had some wild ideas about the privatization of national defense and some others that would create pretty much a corporate state.
Personally, I think the US markets become far less relevant to China's economy within the next decade as Asia continues developing. Short term they may need us, but longer term we may in their way.
Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, I wasn't "judging" China, only stating the obvious.
As for Iran, there are many who wish to only look at Iran today, and ignore how and why Iran became so unfriendly to the US. Do a bit of reading and learn how the Shah rose to power, as well as how he was able to remain in power as long as he did, and how he treated his own subjects while in power.
Like the Iranians are better off under their current government, and now it uses its proxies Hamas and Hezbollah to export violence and terrorism. But what the heck, we'll just blame America for all of this too. Sorry, just stating the "obvious".
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
But like all threads, we've morphed all over the map over 4 years of posts. So a bit of "off-topic" content should be tolerated. If Buicks stopped selling in China, it would mean something to US car buyers. Anything that affects GM's bottom line could affect our buying choices here.
That said, the stuff about the Pahlavi dynasty in Iran does seem a bit far afield.
You have a problem with..."the floggings will continue until morale is restored"???
Well, don't you think that national defense is largely a corporate matter now? Isn't that what President Eisenhower warned us about 50 years ago in his famous speech about the military-industrial complex?
In any case, the defense budget would be much smaller under a libertarian government - not that I expect to see one in my lifetime - because libertarians don't think that American taxpayers should have to foot the bill for the defense of other countries. Taxpayer-funded foreign aid would also come to an end, although individual citizens could voluntarily send money to their favorite countries/international causes if they wanted to.
I have a t shirt with more or less that on it!
The point was (and is)...
One must first understand the history of what happened in order to understand why things are the way they are today, be it foreign government behavior, automobile manufacturer mis-management, etc.
Those who simply wish to start out by taking today's "snapshot" of what "is" today (and at the same time, disregarding what "was") provide an excellent example of why there is so much resentment against the Big-3 supporters (and the auto worker unions).
To understand how to get where you wish to go, one must first understand how he got to where his is currently. Anyone refusing to do that is doomed to failure, unless he is outstandingly lucky.
So I can send my money to any cause I want? Invest in Hamas, IDF, and AlQaeda concurrently and see who gives me the best return, even if they work against where I live? Now that's off topic for ya
How long would Blackwater stay afloat if our government made it a matter of policy not to get involved in foreign wars?
How long would corporate farming last if we eliminated all agricultural subsidies & sugar tariffs?
Big government is the enabler & defender - not the enemy - of corporate power.
So I can send my money to any cause I want?
Why not? Do you think that your elected officials can do a better job of making these decisions for you?
Once again, I'm not placing blame on anyone.
All I suggested was that you do a bit of research to gain a better understanding of the situation.
To a large segment of the US population alive at the time, Iran didn't exist until the Hostage "Crisis" under Jimmy Carter happened. To them, it was totally unprovoked, and all Iranians were crazy Islamics.
Be aware, however, that there are many in the Middle East that say the US has done the same thing (exporting terrorism). I doubt you agree with that assessment, and that's OK. You're entitled to your opinion.
Personally, I feel there's more than enough blame to go around. And, until someone stands up and starts acting like an "adult", I don't see any changes coming.
The shah was several decades ago. Foreign relations were more tilted toward mercantilism then. The US has made efforts and gestures to gain a new beginning with Iran, but the current Iranian government prefers to use the US as a "Satan" to stir up their citizens and justify their abuse of power. I don't disagree that history can provide some insight and information. However, you must be careful because the world changes and sometimes history isn't always relevant to the current and future as it was in the past. I'm sorry, but to lay all this Iranian hassle and blame heavily on the US is a bunch of hooey. To equate America to the terrorism carried out by Iran and its operatives like Hezbollah is a little over the top to me. Everyone makes mistakes, but when countries in the world face disaster the US is usually first in line to help. Come to think of it, you never seem to hear about wealthy oil countries like Iran making any significant financial contributions... and personally, I'm not so sure that a lot of Iranian citizens are all that loving of their current government either. In fact, while you are doing your research, check out the number of Iranians that emigrated to America.
Blackwater would simply become government. Government didn't create the warmongering policies without special interest appeal. The corporat farming firms would also simply become government. As government enables corporations, corporations give orders to government. One begets the other. You get the laws you pay for.
So I can send my money to any given terrorist or criminal cause, and it's fine? Eevn if it works against where I live? Wild. I don't see corporate cowards as having any greater ability than public sector empty suits to determine what is best. One or the other WILL have power, whether anyone likes it or not.
Regards,
OW
A lot of the resentment towards unions is because those that are out of work and those that don't make the kind of money of union workers are expected to support the "Entitled" unions.
Kip
That's the way I see it. I think unions might be necessary, to a degree, at least in some fields, just to keep the companies in check. But, when the unions have TOO much power, as we've witnessed with the auto industry, some abusive teachers unions, and so forth, it wreaks havoc.
Just like everything in life, go too far left or too far right, and someone gets screwed. The balance is somewhere in the middle, but we keep missing it!
I guess one small consolation though, is that if you're out of work and not bringing in a paycheck, you're also not paying taxes, so then you're not supporting those entitled unions. :sick:
And if you're under-employed, you're really not paying taxes, either. I've read somewhere that something like 40-50% of the American workforce either pays no federal taxes at all, or actually gets money back! And I don't mean they just get a refund come tax time; they actually get back EVERYTHING they paid in taxes, and sometimes more! They still pay SS/Medicare taxes, and most likely state/local taxes, and of course, sales taxes, but just not federal.
DETROIT — General Motors' new CEO told employees that the automaker needs to make cars and trucks that are better than those of competitors such as BMW.
Akerson used BMW as an example, saying that GM's Cadillac luxury brand has to make cars that are better than BMW's 300, 500 and 700 series sedans.
Through August, BMW has sold 139,236 vehicles, beating Cadillac by almost 47,000 cars and trucks, according to Autodata Corp.
Line in the Sand
Let's see if they can meet the challenge. :confuse:
Regards,
OW
At the end of the day, bad management in a corporation, an army or a country is very apparent despite the rhetoric and excuses supported by the unknowing.
Regards,
OW
...and I'm afraid all too pervasive in this country right now as well.
Akerson used BMW as an example, saying that GM's Cadillac luxury brand has to make cars that are better than BMW's 300, 500 and 700 series sedans.
Through August, BMW has sold 139,236 vehicles, beating Cadillac by almost 47,000 cars and trucks, according to Autodata Corp.
Amazing that it took GM 30 years to figure that out. I could have told them that for only $5M, a fraction of what Wagoner was paid over the years!
Wow. I've never been a union employee and no one in my family is/was. But for someone who I'm sure considers themselves 'enlightened', that sure is painting with a broad (and I might add, narrow minded) brush.
That's Bob.
And all lawyers are sharks too. :P
Census figures for 2009 — the recession-ravaged first year of the Democrat's presidency — are to be released in the coming week, and demographers expect grim findings.
It's unfortunate timing for Obama and his party just seven weeks before important elections when control of Congress is at stake. The anticipated poverty rate increase — from 13.2 percent to about 15 percent — would be another blow to Democrats struggling to persuade voters to keep them in power.
"The most important anti-poverty effort is growing the economy and making sure there are enough jobs out there," Obama said Friday at a White House news conference. He stressed his commitment to helping the poor achieve middle-class status and said, "If we can grow the economy faster and create more jobs, then everybody is swept up into that virtuous cycle."
Interviews with six demographers who closely track poverty trends found wide consensus that 2009 figures are likely to show a significant rate increase to the range of 14.7 percent to 15 percent.
Should those estimates hold true, some 45 million people in this country, or more than 1 in 7, were poor last year. It would be the highest single-year increase since the government began calculating poverty figures in 1959. The previous high was in 1980 when the rate jumped 1.3 percentage points to 13 percent during the energy crisis.
Among the 18-64 working-age population, the demographers expect a rise beyond 12.4 percent, up from 11.7 percent. That would make it the highest since at least 1965, when another Democratic president, Lyndon B. Johnson, launched the war on poverty that expanded the federal government's role in social welfare programs from education to health care.
Demographers also are confident the report will show:
_Child poverty increased from 19 percent to more than 20 percent.
_Blacks and Latinos were disproportionately hit, based on their higher rates of unemployment.
_Metropolitan areas that posted the largest gains in poverty included Modesto, Calif.; Detroit; Cape Coral-Fort Myers, Fla.; Los Angeles and Las Vegas.
"My guess is that politically these figures will be greeted with alarm and dismay but they won't constitute a clarion call to action," said William Galston, a domestic policy aide for President Bill Clinton. "I hope the parties don't blame each other for the desperate circumstances of desperate people. That would be wrong in my opinion. But that's not to say it won't happen."
Lawrence M. Mead, a New York University political science professor who is a conservative and wrote "The New Politics of Poverty: The Nonworking Poor in America," argued that the figures will have a minimal impact in November.
"Poverty is not as big an issue right now as middle-class unemployment. That's a lot more salient politically right now," he said.
But if Thursday's report is as troubling as expected, Republicans in the midst of an increasingly strong drive to win control of the House, if not the Senate, would get one more argument to make against Democrats in the campaign homestretch.
The GOP says voters should fire Democrats because Obama's economic fixes are hindering the sluggish economic recovery. Rightly or wrongly, Republicans could cite a higher poverty rate as evidence.
Democrats almost certainly will argue that they shouldn't be blamed. They're likely to counter that the economic woes — and the poverty increase — began under President George W. Bush with the near-collapse of the financial industry in late 2008.
Although that's true, it's far from certain that the Democratic explanation will sway voters who already are trending heavily toward the GOP in polls as worrisome economic news piles up.
Hispanics and blacks — traditionally solid Democratic constituencies — could be inclined to stay home in November if, as expected, the Census Bureau reports that many more of them were poor last year.
Beyond this fall, the findings could put pressure on Obama to expand government safety net programs ahead of his likely 2012 re-election bid even as Republicans criticize him about federal spending and annual deficits. Those are areas of concern for independent voters whose support is critical in elections.
Experts say a jump in the poverty rate could mean that the liberal viewpoint — social constraints prevent the poor from working — will gain steam over the conservative position that the poor have opportunities to work but choose not to because they get too much help.
"The Great Recession will surely push the poverty rate for working-age people to a nearly 50-year peak," said Elise Gould, an economist with the Economic Policy Institute. She said that means "it's time for a renewed attack on poverty."
To Douglas Besharov, a University of Maryland public policy professor, the big question is whether there's anything more to do to help these families.
The 2009 forecasts are largely based on historical data and the unemployment rate, which climbed to 10.1 percent last October to post a record one-year gain.
The projections partly rely on a methodology by Rebecca Blank, a former poverty expert who now oversees the census. She estimated last year that poverty would hit about 14.8 percent if unemployment reached 10 percent. "As long as unemployment is higher, poverty will be higher," she said in an interview then.
A formula by Richard Bavier, a former analyst with the White House Office of Management and Budget who has had high rates of accuracy over the last decade, predicts poverty will reach 15 percent.
That would put the rate at the highest level since 1993. The all-time high was 22.4 percent in 1959, the first year the government began tracking poverty. It dropped to a low of 11.1 percent in 1973 after Johnson's war on poverty but has since fluctuated in the 12-14 percent range.
In 2008, the poverty level stood at $22,025 for a family of four, based on an official government calculation that includes only cash income before tax deductions. It excludes capital gains or accumulated wealth. It does not factor in noncash government aid such as tax credits or food stamps, which have surged to record levels in recent years under the federal stimulus program.
Beginning next year, the government plans to publish new, supplemental poverty figures that are expected to show even higher numbers of people in poverty than previously known. The figures will take into account rising costs of medical care, transportation and child care, a change analysts believe will add to the ranks of both seniors and working-age people in poverty.
Hmm, and what was the Detroit 3's market share back then? I wonder how there could be so much poverty during the 60's when manufacturing jobs were supposedly plentiful for everyone.
The poverty rate in 1959 was over 22%. I guess those days weren't so good after all.
But then again, like any statistics, who knows if the numbers used back then are comparable to those used today.
Next time, just give us a link. Only newbies copy & paste like this.
Again, I guess it's all about where you live (lived). I can say unequivocally, my hometown has been decimated by the movement of manufacturing to other countries, resulting in more poverty and fewer professional people living there.
Next time, just give us a link. Only newbies copy & paste like this.
Geez, it isn't even after midnight! (or was that busiris...I mix you two up).
I have noticed that when somebody posts something that rankles you, instead of addressing it square on, you either divert to something completely unrelated or tell the person how unenlightened they are.
What's next..."I know I am but so are you?"!!
My hometown is far more affluent now than when I grew up in the '70's and 80's even though the near by steel mills don't employ nearly as many as they did in the 70's.
Basically, I found it ironic that this topic is "Buying American cars what does that mean" and back when the Detroit 3 probably had its peak market share, the US had record high poverty levels.
Anyway, the online community, which was much, much smaller in those days, had a pretty well-defined sense of right & wrong. Back then, forum sysops would slam you mercilessly for quoting without attribution - rightfully so, IMO.
If I'm not mistaken, appropriating someone else's work as your own has been considered wrong since the invention of the printing press, if not earlier. If something's happened to change that, no one thought to copy me on the memo.
I guess I'm just too old & set in my ways.
No, that's what GM is saying to Hyundai after taking the executives that were successful at the Korean automaker and loosing the August sales lead in the sedan segment! :P
Regards,
OW
He'll calm down after a time....
I like to do it like this and then post the link to the entire article...
Both governments will sell some of their shares immediately so that their respective taxpayers can begin to get repaid. Full repayment would require the new GM to have a total market capitalization of about $70 billion, which is nearly 30% more than the company's peak market cap of a decade ago.
That's daunting, but there's more. Ford Motor's total market value is only $41 billion, even though Ford didn't go bankrupt. And its first-half earnings of $4.7 billion were more than double the $2.2 billion earned by General Motors.
So how can GM be worth more than Ford? Especially since General Motors now has its fourth chief executive officer in 20 months and hasn't clearly explained its corporate strategy. It has also gone through multiple marketing chiefs and other key executives.
Crash to Disaster
You see, at the end of the day, GM did not change one bit.... :lemon:
Regards,
OW
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100911/ap_on_bi_ge/us_poverty_in_america
I did a quick google. search using the first sentence.
It's the same article I linked a few days back. It was posted on AP. I theorized I wouldn't see it mentioned in our local newsrag print paper because it glares badly on the Obama administration's last two years.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
You said you have not been part of a union...but have you spent any TIME in the presence of their members, specifically the UAW???...I did, for 10 years, in the belly of the beast, Detroit...granted, I am expressing my opinion, based on my own observations and things they said and did, plus knowing many non-UAW folks in Detroit, and the anger they expressed at their UAW neighbors...those folks were one step above dragging their knuckles on the ground, sorry if my descriptions bother you...
But when you see them think, look and act like lemmings, it is easy to paint them with a broad brush, simply because it is true...maybe I am enlightened and maybe I'm not, but a decade in Detroit was VERY educational in terms of UAW people...they are what they are, like it or not...
I don't have the cite (I never do) but someone recently posted a link to an article which I believe was UAW-oriented (maybe not)...the union would not compromise so they simply closed the plant (was it NUMMI?) and they all lost their jobs, and one union member, a woman, I believe, was quoted as saying, "At least we didn't give in" or something like that...
So, let me get this staright...rather than compromise a few bucks an hour and keep a job that probably paid them far in excess of what the job was worth (probably floorsweeping and shelf stocking at $35/hour plus benefits) they stood their ground, AND THEY ARE NOW UNEMPLOYED WITHOUT ANY JOB...and I am supposed to call this intelligent???...do you???
Does that attitude explain why unions are a problem, and why they are shrinking???...if my employees had that attitude for ONE DAY, I would close my plant (if I had one, of course) and move it out of the country in a week...then, I would disassemble the plant brick by brick, and UPS one gift-wrapped brick to the home of each former employee, thanking them for their worthless work attitude, and then send them update photos of the new plant being built in Brazil, or maybe under the Arctic ice, which would still be more profitable with non-UAW labor...
Believe me, the US auto industry will survive, and when the UAW is gone, the industry will thrive...
The US has half as many manufacturing jobs today as in 1970.
The population is up 70 million in that time, so we consume far more manufactured goods. Where do they all come from? 40 million Americans are now on food assistance from the US gov.
Japan wont even buy soy sauce from us. Now they plant soybean in the vacant land at their Ohio factories and all those empty part containers that came in from Japan filled with trannies, radios, air bags and pcm's? They go back to Japan filled with beans. that way the US can't even sell soy sauce to a country without farmland and Japan makes a profit in the return of the containers to Japan for more hi value auto parts.
Yeah, a company that shrewd has it so 85% of the value of that Honda stays in the US. Look how good our economy is doing since it went to 85%.
The whole world has lost manufacturing jobs due to productivity. The manufacturing facilities present in the US produce more today than they did in 1970, were are far more productive.
As far as Japan, their economy has been faltering for over 20 years, so while we can blame our ills on them, they are far from being in good shape.
That makes it 'assembled in the US' and so then 85% of the value stayed in the US right?
That depends I guess. You could have paid where you bought it to assemble it. I assembled my own computer last year. Spent 3 hours assembling and trouble shooting. Certainly not an efficient method as I would have been far more productive doing something I am efficient at. Our economy shouldn't waste resources on activities we are not efficient at either.