Tariffs to Help Domestic Manufacturers?

anythngbutgm

"Green Plastic"

"Mitsubishi Motors has dubbed its independently developed plant-based resin technology, including this PBS-bamboo fiber resin, "Green Plastics". Mitsubishi Motors will continue to promote the development of environmentally friendly materials, directed toward increased practical applications."

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2006/02/20/211059.html

It's cool to see Mitsu getting some much needed attention on this. Even with the struggles they have been going through, they still manage to innovate... Kudos.

rockylee

That is pretty cool.

Rocky

rockylee

The Eclipse is selling very well. It must be nice having a government that believes in keeping a company afloat when bad times hit. Those workers get to keep a job and hell they do make a few nice cars. Mitsubishi would be a great edition to GM, and would give them a great advantage for selling small cars, and the best turbo design, since it's looking like $3 dollar gas is here to stay based on what Lou Dobbs has said. :sick:

Rocky

brightness04

Outsourcing wouldn't be a political issue if domestic jobs are abundant. In reality, having people in other parts of the world working for us, making products and services available to us, is probably a net plus for us, to put it mildly.

The real advantage of flat-tax is two fold:

(1) Simplifies tax collection and book keeping; so people can go ahead do more real wealth creation instead of dickering over taxcodes, looking for and creating loopholes.

(2) Help the poor become part of the liberty-loving coalition. When a new business is not started, and a set of new jobs are not created, the poor are the ones who pay the ultimate price by losing another precious opportunity to lift out of poverty. Very few business pay workers less than 13% of profit. Yet that's how little the government business pays the poor out of money collected in their name. If a charity paid out that little out of total collections, it would be under investigation for fraud.

rockylee

It's no Evo: catching up with the 2008 Mitsubishi Lancer

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/GeneralFuture/articleId=116193

Mitsubishi Concept-X

Boy I love this cars design...Very sporty and it's performance is breath taking. Mitsubishi needs to make the EVO-X concept look just like this and give it a great interior with some creature feature "gadgets" :shades:

http://www.edmunds.com/news/autoshow/articles/107458/page005.html

The Mitsubishi Evo X Concept Redefines Cornering

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=109902

Rocky

P.S.

If Mitsubishi, delivers a Concept-X along with a great comfy interior and Subuaru WRX STI performance I will have to at least give it some consideration because you get a helluva lot of performance for your dollar. The subie is a hair small for me to get the kids in and out of and I can't get past its ugly nose.

tpe

It must be nice having a government that believes in keeping a company afloat when bad times hit.

When you say government you mean taxpayers, right? How big does a company need to be for it to deserve taxpayer support? Should the government have stepped in when all the dot.coms went under or are you primarily sympathetic towards union companies?

Actually I think that Mitsubishi has somewhat seen the light that Ford refuses to see. They need to be an innovative company to stay in business. They won't out compete Toyota at their game.

I owned a 1990 Eclipse turbo. It was an absolute blast to drive for a front wheel drive but from a quality perspective it was a piece of garbage. That was a joint Mitsubishi/Chrysler effort so maybe that had something to do with it. I don't know much about the new Eclipse other than it weighs more than it should (over 700 lbs heavier than 1990 model).

rockylee

How many jobs did those dot.coms support ? I mean really we are talking apples to oranges in size comparison to a major automaker. The government doesn't need to step in financially put politically.

Rocky

P.S. Mitsubishi, has always been a good innovator of performance hardware. Now only if they would step up the quality dept.

john_324

"How many jobs did those dot.coms support ? I mean really we are talking apples to oranges in size comparison to a major automaker. The government doesn't need to step in financially put politically."

What does that mean, to step in politically?

rockylee

Change the trade laws and hold the country's like Japan, that manipulate there currency's accountable. Japan's market is very much closed to american goods.

Rocky

john_324

How would you say we should hold them accountable? Do you mean we should close our market to Japanese goods?

rockylee

I'm saying we should tariff their products at the estimated manipulation rate of somewhere between 30-40% to help even out the playing field for the domestics

Rocky

tpe

Let's take Ford for example. I'd be somewhat surprised if they still exist as we now know them in 10 years. It's not due to tough times its due to their inability to compete. How would government intervention change that? How would an open Japanese market help an automaker that's not producing relevant vehicles. It's not the government's role to force the taxpayers to keep non-competitive companies alive simply as a jobs program.

tpe

I'm saying we should tariff their products at the estimated manipulation rate of somewhere between 30-40% to help even out the playing field for the domestics

Are you talking about Japan or China in regards to currency manipulation? I've heard that about China but I guarantee a lot more US automobiles are sold in China than Chinese vehicles sold here. That probably won't always be the case but it is now. A lot of the Japanese vehicles are manufactured in the US. How would you put a tariff on them?

If you want to address all the major reasons that domestic automakers aren't as competitive you can't ignore the UAW's role. I suspect that this tariff you propose is merely an indirect method of subsidizing the auto union.

rockylee

I agree but when your government sells the home team down the toilet and tax payers have to help front the bill for a new foreign plant is plain wrong. We have allowed the Japanese to take advantage of our country. They lobby our politics to get favorable laws passed for them. Years of them having not only currency advantages but us not having a national healthcare plan also hasn't helped our domestic manufactors out. Some also would blame over regulation as another cause. The Japanese flat-out have had advantages of being relatively young and are able to build new modern plants at tax-payers expense. They left japan because they new they could get americans to work like slaves because we are the best overall workers in the world and ask little in return in the form of compensation. Now many in the public say Toyota and Honda are more american than Ford and GM. They use the famous line that Toyota and Honda, aren't sending there workers to the unemployment line. That is true but like i said when you have all the advantages of timing and a foreign government and media helping you out its not that hard to obtain success and have enough extra money to put a few bucks more into a car and still make thousands more than the home team.

Just my $0.02

Rocky

john_324

Okay, let's say the United States puts a 35% tariff on incoming Japanese-made automobiles...this effectively raises the price of a Japanese car by 35%.

How would this help Ford?

rockylee

Are you talking about Japan or China in regards to currency manipulation?

Both..... Japan and China are among the best at hiding there true currency values. I've read several different publications from various sources saying both country's manipulate it as high as 38%.

I've heard that about China but I guarantee a lot more US automobiles are sold in China than Chinese vehicles sold here.

Well for a few years any ways, right :surprise:

That probably won't always be the case but it is now. A lot of the Japanese vehicles are manufactured in the US. How would you put a tariff on them?

I wouldn't because they are becoming more "american made" which is great but many more of them are still made in Japan. I however would cut-off the tax exemptions the new plants are getting. Don't quote me but the San Antonio Toyota plant is getting like 300 million in tax exemptions. That is insane. :surprise:

If you want to address all the major reasons that domestic automakers aren't as competitive you can't ignore the UAW's role.

As we've discussed in several other forums the Japanese and European labor unions make the UAW look like pussycats.

I suspect that this tariff you propose is merely an indirect method of subsidizing the auto union.

No its a way of saving small business which creates jobs. I want to save my country and its workers from low cost 3rd world countrys. Joe-six pack shouldn't have to compete with some guy in china both in small business and labor rates. If you haven't noticed the U.S. standard of living has gone down. People are making less money now then they were a few years ago. It wasn't until this year we saw a small spike back up in real wages but we have lots of catching up to do. It's just not wages where your average american has been squeezed but one needs to look at the benefits package also. American employers can't afford healthcare costs, let alone fund pensions or match 401K's. We are going through a very bad time and hopefully we will pull our head out of our butt and say wait a minute !!!!!

Rocky

rockylee

It would help ford because they could afford to stick a few bucks more into the product and make it more competitive. It would allow the domestics to play on a more level playing field. Japan, isn't as big of a worry as the chinese because over there they pay workers $0.43 an hour.

The currency manipulation of the Japanese, Japans closed markets because they are nationalistic, no national healthcare in the united states, and a U.S. government that has fostered japanese investment has damaged the competitiveness of the domestics. The domestics have been in business almost or over 100 years. Many old plants still exist. If I wanted to point the finger at anyone i'd point it at GM and Ford management in the 1970's, 80's, 90's, for not adopting to the changes. How could ford let the very popular Taurus just wither away and die is beyond me ????? :mad:

Rocky

Kirstie_H

Since we've veered well off the original track, I've made a discussion title change. Thanks for keeping this discussion automotive-focused as we continue the political/economic conversation!

Kirstie_H

And Mitsubishi engines in the 1980's turned "Dodge" into a verb rather than a proper noun for our family - it's what you should do when encountered with the opportunity to purchase one.

john_324

So you'd imagine that Ford would use this "breathing room" created by an bigger price differential to up the content/quality level of its products?

I notice that even now in this supposedly unequitable environment, the average Japanese family sedan (for example) is more expensive than the comparable Ford. Yet people still buy these Japanese cars, in shocking amounts even...

I suppose the big question is: is "helping out" Ford by lessening its competition going to make it more, or less, competitive?

rockylee

So you'd imagine that Ford would use this "breathing room" created by an bigger price differential to up the content/quality level of its products?

Based on what little I know about Alan Mulally thats all he would need to turn-around ford way sooner.

I notice that even now in this supposedly unequitable environment, the average Japanese family sedan (for example)is more expensive than the comparable Ford. Yet people still buy these Japanese cars, in shocking amounts even...

Well thats not hard to imagine because you can spend a few more thousand and buy a toyota that is probably a better vehicle and do to the perception of such it will hold its resale value. Again a marginal savings by going domestic doesn't reflect the "big picture"

I suppose the big question is: is "helping out" Ford by lessening its competition going to make it more, or less, competitive?

Japanese makes would still sell at a high rate because americans would still pony up the extra change to buy one. However the "breathing room" would allow ford to become more competitive and profitable per unit. The detnews had a big article about currency manipulation a few weeks ago and on some models the manipulation gap is a staggering $9K :surprise:

Rocky

bumpy

I'm saying we should tariff their products at the estimated manipulation rate of somewhere between 30-40% to help even out the playing field for the domestics

Let's see if I've got this.

* two generations of disastrously incompetent management at all the domestics has resulted in the American car-buying public continually moving away from their inferior offerings;

* the Japanese government has subsidized the American purchase of superior offerings to the tune of several thousand dollars per vehicle;

* even though the transaction price of domestic offerings is less than the "foreign" makes, the American public's rejection continues;

* even though the long appreciation of the yen after the Plaza Accords did nothing to reverse or even slow the American public's rejection of the domestic offerings;

* you think it's a good idea to punish the American public for buying cars they do like and rejecting cars they don't like.

Keep your hands out of my wallet, Rocky. :mad:

rockylee

ROTFLMAO @ bumpy

I was only trying to make it fair. I guess many americans like the NY yankees like stacking the deck in ones favor.

Rocky

nwng

that is just all wishful thinking

did the profits made year after year by selling exlpores and F150 went to create a better quality vehicle? the taurus could've used it, so is the ranger, focus, freestar....

rockylee

did the profits made year after year by selling exlpores and F150 went to create a better quality vehicle?

I'm not saying that they did. However they should at least had the oppertunity too and still have that oppertunity. :sick:

Rocky

bumpy

Fair to who? It's not fair for me to have to pay an extra 38% for a good car because Ford can't get it's act together.

rockylee

Fair to who? It's not fair for me to have to pay an extra 38% for a good car because Ford can't get it's act together.

It's not fair for ford, to have to compete against a country that lies and not have the opportunity to sell you a vehical as good as the foreign make.

Rocky

dtownfb

Interesting arguments.

Rocky, while blaming currency manipulation in japan and China (don't understnad the China argument), the reason the big 2-1/2 have lost market share is bad business practices and decisions. You forget that the Taurus was the number one selling car in the mid 90's. What happened? ford re-designed it and blew it. Camry and Accord re-designed and hit a bulleyes. Ford has not recovered since. they introduced the Focus in 1999 and promptly had 9 recalls in the first year and half. The Ford Explorer, the most popular SUV on the planet, had a major tire recall and associated lost of life. Sales are now almost half of what they used to be. A foucus on building profit rich SUVs and pickups in the 90s killed product development for their cars and now Lincoln and Mercury are suffering. But I guess it is easier to blame someone else than your own actions.

If the domestics would concentrate on building a better product, the Japanese would not stand a chance! If Chevy built a car like the Accord, they would sell over 500,000 of them without rebates. Americans want to buy domestic but when you are paying $20k for a car, you have to go with the best for needs.

The Big 2-1/2 are too big, too many brands, too many acocuntants deciding what a car should have an not have, too high labor costs, too many retirees pensions. Nothing at all to do with currency manipulation. they need to build a better product and change their business practices. They are doign better but it will take time.

anythngbutgm

The Big 2-1/2 are too big, too many brands, too many acocuntants deciding what a car should have an not have, too high labor costs, too many retirees pensions. Nothing at all to do with currency manipulation.

Bingo. GM and Ford still think they are living in 1950 controlling 60% or whatever figure they had for market share. They have to cover way too many bases with all the brands and in the end instead of one kicka$$ product, we get a bunch of mediocre ones. And each one of them end up fighting for the same buyer rather than actually competing with outside competition.

Example: I don't understand the hype that GM fans have got for the new Malibu but as someone said before and on other threads, it appears to be nothing more than a reskinned Saturn Aura, itself a glorified Pontiac G6 with a better interior, all tracing roots back to the LAST Malibu and the Saab 9-3. I may be way off and this thing could be something TOTALLY new, but the average buyer is going to look at this ALL NEW Malibu and if they weren't a GM fan or car nut, they would most likely get the impression that it is no better than the old one. Or they would realize that they could buy a Saturn which would be old news by then. Or a G6 which is REALLY old news now. Or they could see that SAAB is giving their cars away because basically the brand is dead and they could probably get a steal on a 9-3.

Certainly doesn't seem that special of a car anymore...

rockylee

I never brought up china, but was mentioned in the currency manipulation.

While your post is filled with many facts the currency manipulation is something you can't just ignore and find other reasons to justify problems at the big 3. We all know the current problems at the big 3. currency manipulation, no national healthcare, free trade and other trade laws, are the root problems with not just auto manufactoring but with manufactoring in general. The china equation and there expansion since you brought them up will only magnify these problems even more. We americans can't compete with $0.40 an hour. We don't live in grass huts (yet) and eat snakes. We have a hard time as it is competing with the Mexicans that make $2.00 an hour. $0.40 an hour is impossible and as more and more manufactoring goes to china the only hope for americans is that the people in china form labor unions someday to level out the playing field. however than is going to take at least 25-50 years mininum and we don't have that much time to wait and see. :sick:

We are either going to address the problems now or we will be owned by a variety of foreign governments. I fear the latter.

Rocky

tpe

I've got news for you. All this currency manipulation and protectionism that Japan is practicing isn't doing much for their domestic economy. Their national debt relative to GDP makes our debt look like pocket change. For the longest time Japan offered zero percent interest in what is comparable to our federal reserve rate. This was because their economy was stagnant and the standard of living was definitely not improving. I'm not sure why you would offer this up as an example we should follow.

As far as the Toyota plant getting big tax breaks in San Antonio, that has nothing to do with preferential treatment for Japanese automakers. That is simply what states and localities do in order to lure major employers. If Ford wanted to open a plant in San Antonio I'm sure they would be offered some sort of tax break. It wouldn't be as big because they can't sell as many vehicles and could probably only afford to hire a few people.

American employers can't afford healthcare costs, let alone fund pensions or match 401K's.

Actually corporate profits are at almost historically high levels. Its just the automakers that can't seem to compete. I can't imagine why with all that highly skilled and motivated union labor.

rockylee

However your forum screen name doesn't make you biased in anyway. :P

you crack me up "anything"

Rocky

anythngbutgm

That's your response? :confuse:

Care to disprove?

anythngbutgm

What IS so special about the Malibu? And keeping within the realm of GM, why should anyone buy a Malibu over say a heavily discounted G6 or "Old news by then" Saturn Aura? I can pluck a 9-3 base model off the showroom floor for probably 21 grand right now, because the car is now 5 years old and Saab certainly ain't ripe for a renaissance, why would I go for a lowly Chevy?

Again, I don't believe the Malibu is going to live up to the hype that you folks claim. Don't see how it could.

bumpy

Fine, then go convince the Japanese government to throw some pity yen at the feet of the domestics. Don't come looking for it from me. GM, Ford, and Chrysler earned their whippings, and still have a long way to go before they've completed their penance to the American public.

rockylee

I've got news for you. All this currency manipulation and protectionism that Japan is practicing isn't doing much for their domestic economy. Their national debt relative to GDP makes our debt look like pocket change. For the longest time Japan offered zero percent interest in what is comparable to our federal reserve rate. This was because their economy was stagnant and the standard of living was definitely not improving. I'm not sure why you would offer this up as an example we should follow.

It wouldn't be as big because they can't sell as many vehicles and could probably only afford to hire a few people.

That was a cheap shot. :sick:



I'm never said it was a model to follow but the fact remains they are kicking our butts in the automotive sector. The japanese have to many people for the number of jobs they can provide.

As far as the Toyota plant getting big tax breaks in San Antonio, that has nothing to do with preferential treatment for Japanese automakers. That is simply what states and localities do in order to lure major employers. If Ford wanted to open a plant in San Antonio I'm sure they would be offered some sort of tax break.

Well its the localities that want the jobs which i can't blame them but at the expense of who ? My tax dollars are going to fund a already very wealthy company and it doesn't make me happy. :mad: My problem is Toyota is a Japanese company while Ford is an american company. Ford, provides tens of thousands more jobs than toyota, and due to all these unfair advantages Ford, is going to have to shut plants down and lay-off thousands more people than Toyota can hire. The end result is a net loss of jobs and tax revenue no matter how you guys want to spin it. :mad:

Actually corporate profits are at almost historically high levels. Its just the automakers that can't seem to compete. I can't imagine why with all that highly skilled and motivated union labor.

Corporate profits are high because many company's are hiring foreign workers in India in the service sector and out sourcing to low wage country' s. The government has even increased the number of work visa's for foreigners looking to under cut an american. I guess working for a third of an american, is what president Bush classify's as a job an american won't due. :mad: Well Mr. Prez, its a job an american can't afford to do sir !!!! :mad:
The unions have fought to keep jobs in this country and corporate america fights them back by hiring lobbyist on K-street to persuade politicians to give tax breaks to company's that off-shore there business. See anything wrong with this picture ??? Oh i forgot its all about the company's profitability and the consumers bottom line no matter who has to pay for the consequences. :sick:

Rocky

Kirstie_H

If Ford wanted to open a plant in San Antonio I'm sure they would be offered some sort of tax break.

They were, in fact, offered some great tax incentives to keep open their Hazelwood, MO plant that makes the Explorer/Mountaineer/Aviator. ("Political and business leaders offer the automaker millions of dollars in incentives and in return Ford agrees to leave the Hazelwood plant open until 2007.") Despite this support, the plant closing was announced in January 2006, due to the fact that Ford's December 2005 "SUV sales levels (were) expected to be at their lowest since they were introduced in 15 years ago."

Interestingly, at that plant the "average autoworker, with overtime, makes around $65,000, about double what the average Missouri resident makes each year."

Reference:
Hazelwood Plant Fact Sheet

anythngbutgm

My problem is Toyota is a Japanese company while Ford is an american company. Ford, provides tens of thousands more jobs than toyota...

Only at the moment. The problem with this claim is that the Domestic fans don't realize these things take time. Toyota, Honda, whomever wants to invest here are not going to all of a sudden plop 15 plants and start employing 300k workers. That would be fiscal suicide. So they are gradually implimenting new product lines and new facilities.

Meanwhile, I read not too long ago that GM's big push was towards China, pretty much abandoning the US market. It's no big secret that GM and Ford would love to rid themselves of the Union workforce, and by concentrating on countries like China, they could be successful.

What I don't get is why the gung-ho "Buy GM boys" are so supportive of the home team when the home team is ready to leave you behind. :confuse:

rockylee

What IS so special about the Malibu? And keeping within the realm of GM, why should anyone buy a Malibu over say a heavily discounted G6 or "Old news by then" Saturn Aura? I can pluck a 9-3 base model off the showroom floor for probably 21 grand right now, because the car is now 5 years old and Saab certainly ain't ripe for a renaissance, why would I go for a lowly Chevy?

The 9-3 is only worth about $21K but even I doubt you could get one that cheap. The 08' Malibu, is about the size of the current Impala. The Aura, like the new Malibu is a legit camcord fighter thus making it special to us domestic fans. "anything" it has a nice interior. The G6, needs a interior redo and isn't even in the same league as the Malibu/Aura in the fit and finish department. The malibu is way more reliable than the 9-3 which will have to be taken to the shop every other week for repairs.

Again, I don't believe the Malibu is going to live up to the hype that you folks claim. Don't see how it could.

You will see the sales numbers of the malibu, in a year and then I expect apologize. J/K :P

Rocky

rockylee

I agree and if that happens then I will have no other choice but to buy and support the Japanese, since i will refuse to buy a Chinese made car or even one that is made here owned by the Chinese. :mad:

I've already owned one Japanese car a Acura, and if GM and Ford go to china, and abandon the U.S. market i guess my choice will be further limited. Of course I could be like fintail, and buy European. :surprise:

Rocky

anythngbutgm

The 08' Malibu, is about the size of the current Impala

Then GM is really stupid for pinning 2 identical sized vehicles against each other. So we can expect deep discounts to move the Impala then? Or is it just going to be exclusive "fleet". Either way can't be good for the bottom line and a waste of money to build a vehicle to do exactly the same as another on the same damn lot!

The Aura, like the new Malibu is a legit camcord fighter thus making it special to us domestic fans

Again, why the Malibu then? If it is going to offer the exact same engine configurations and a claimed "Nice interior" (which by the way the Aura is only OK imo) as the Saturn, then GM is just wasting their time and money when they've got the segment covered.

The malibu is way more reliable than the 9-3 which will have to be taken to the shop every other week for repairs.

I know this from my own experience. But the fact remains that Saab has a faint glimmer of being an "upscale brand" while lowly Chevrolet is just that, a lowly Chevrolet... lessee, Turbo motor, manual gearbox, Euro seats? Easy decision there.

In the end, you've got copycat-city still going on over in Detroit. Meanwhile, the Camry keeps prancing along, one model, no infighting, selling 450k a year on it's own individual merits.

i.e. it's only better than the outgoing model.

john_324

...do you have a "Pitchfork Pat" level membership in the Lou Dobbs fan club?

You're finally edging around the thesis that usually undergirds these sorts of arguments: that a manufacturing economy is the best one to have. I'd respectfully disagree.

The U.S. economy is undergoing a sea change, moving from a heavy manufacturing economy to a service economy. While it's certainly not painless in the short term by any means, in the long term it's the best way to go and will benefit the most Americans, both directly (through better and more jobs) and indirectly (though lower prices).

Consider the last time we faced this situation...the industrialization of the U.S. Many very smart people aruged that it was a bad idea, including Thomas Jefferson himself. Needless to say, while the change was tough at times, in the end, I think we'd all agree it was for the best...

My big concern is making sure Americans have the skills needed to succede in this brave new world, rather than trying to delay an inevitable change for a while longer.

America's strength as an economy has always been its dynamism; we adapt and innovate faster and better than anyone else in the world. We should be focusing our efforts on developing this dynamism in as many Americans (though education and training) as possible, not on trying to maintain a specific economic structure.

rockylee

Then GM is really stupid for pinning 2 identical sized vehicles against each other. So we can expect deep discounts to move the Impala then? Or is it just going to be exclusive "fleet". Either way can't be good for the bottom line and a waste of money to build a vehicle to do exactly the same as another on the same damn lot!

Well the current Impala will have deep discounts because the RWD V8 big body 09' will be out next year.

Again, why the Malibu then? If it is going to offer the exact same engine configurations and a claimed "Nice interior" (which by the way the Aura is only OK imo) as the Saturn, then GM is just wasting their time and money when they've got the segment covered.

The Aura is more of a camry not as sporty as the malibu.
The malibu will be more like the accord, aggressive and sporty.

I know this from my own experience. But the fact remains that Saab has a faint glimmer of being an "upscale brand" while lowly Chevrolet is just that, a lowly Chevrolet... lessee, Turbo motor, manual gearbox, Euro seats? Easy decision there.

I'd rather have the 08' Malibu. The saab has to many flaws to be upscale. It has chicklet size buttons that reminds me of a Kia.

In the end, you've got copycat-city still going on over in Detroit. Meanwhile, the Camry keeps prancing along, one model, no infighting, selling 450k a year on it's own individual merits.

I explained the reason with my post at the top. Perception is everything and toyota obviously has it. It's not hard to appear flawless when your management is covering up flaws that should be recalled all these years. :P I'm just glad they got caught.

Rocky

anythngbutgm

If they did get caught, it certainly hasn't affected their sales... Must be something good about them because they are breaking sales records and it appears that even Ford has admitted that Toyota will pass them this year

http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/12/21/ford-expects-toyota-to-become-number-two-- - automaker/

I would think that if Toyota was really burning people with their offerings, then word of mouth would get out and Toyota would be on everyones "List" (edited for content). Doesn't seem to be happeneing and I am willing to bet that a small fraction of the population actually reads enthusiasts sites and Auto rags when they are buying a Toyota Camry

rockylee

...do you have a "Pitchfork Pat" level membership in the Lou Dobbs fan club?

In fact I love Lou Dobbs. If I could pick one man to be our president he would be it because I can't recall a time when I've ever disagreed with that man. :shades:

You're finally edging around the thesis that usually undergirds these sorts of arguments: that a manufacturing economy is the best one to have. I'd respectfully disagree.

Well that's okay. We all have our opinions.

The U.S. economy is undergoing a sea change, moving from a heavy manufacturing economy to a service economy. While it's certainly not painless in the short term by any means, in the long term it's the best way to go and will benefit the most Americans, both directly (through better and more jobs) and indirectly (though lower prices).

Thats a great theory if it worked. However we are seeing quite the opposite. We don't have enough service jobs to support such a theory because over in India, they are educating those people to handle those jobs at a lower rate. they will either work over there or come over here on a work visa to take your job. So when you and i have no job we won't be able to use those cheap good or afford those services. Ross Perot, explained to all of us this would happen. I however wasn't laughing at him back then.

Consider the last time we faced this situation...the industrialization of the U.S. Many very smart people argued that it was a bad idea, including Thomas Jefferson himself. Needless to say, while the change was tough at times, in the end, I think we'd all agree it was for the best...

Well people back then weren't competing against the world. It was mainly local, then it spread to national. Now it's global and everybody isn't playing by the same rules.

My big concern is making sure Americans have the skills needed to succeed in this brave new world, rather than trying to delay an inevitable change for a while longer.

Thats the major problem we won't have the skills. India, like many other nations have a education system where college and vocational schooling is free. Our college graduates if they are poor will easily rack up $100k in college loans thus its like being burden with a high interest (9%) home loan when you graduate. :surprise:
So throw that theory out the window.

America's strength as an economy has always been its dynamism; we adapt and innovate faster and better than anyone else in the world. We should be focusing our efforts on developing this dynamism in as many Americans (though education and training) as possible, not on trying to maintain a specific economic structure.

I respectfully disagree. I think like your portfolio you need diversification. Right now we have 26% of our jobs in manufacturing and each year that percentage is going to fall. If we go to a service economy we will have all our eggs in one basket. I just hope I'm dead and gone when the really bad days come upon us like I predict and fear. :sick:

Rocky

anythngbutgm

The Aura is more of a camry not as sporty as the malibu.
The malibu will be more like the accord, aggressive and sporty.

Um, if both models off the same engine configurations, and neither of them offer a manual, or a Coupe, how would that be considered "Sporty" or agrressive? And if they both look the same, how is a potential buyer going to know which one does what task?

Oh and lest we forget that the Malibu has been the epitome of "rental fodder" for the past 9 years starting with the 1997 MotorTrend car of the year.

I think you are going to owe me an apology Rocky :P

rockylee

Toyota, would never receive front page bad press from the media.

Here's a opinion from a site I just found.....holy cow this guy and I share the same feelings.... :surprise:

http://www.howtobuyamerican.com/bamw/bamw-061129-auto.shtml

Rocky

rockylee

W/E "anything" :P

Rocky

john_324

"Thats a great theory if it worked. However we are seeing quite the opposite. We don't have enough service jobs to support such a theory because over in India, they are educating those people to handle those jobs at a lower rate."

Not really. Real economic data shows 1) that outsourced jobs are a tiny percentage of overall job loss compared to the daily "churn" of the economy, 2)in any event, plenty of firms have found it unprofitable to outsource and 3) there are many types of service jobs that cannot be outsourced. These trends are expected to continue well into the future. Alan Blinder (former Chairman of the Fed) had a wonderful analysis of this in Foreign Affairs, last year I believe.

"Our college graduates if they are poor will easily rack up $100k in college loans thus its like being burden with a high interest (9%) home loan when you graduate.
So throw that theory out the window."

Investments in human capital (i.e. yourself) offer the best return of any investment one can make. Education costs are expensive and getting more so (an issue that's recieving more and more serious attention), but the benefits still far outweigh the costs over a person's working lifetime.

"I respectfully disagree. I think like your portfolio you need diversification. Right now we have 26% of our jobs in manufacturing and each year that percentage is going to fall. If we go to a service economy we will have all our eggs in one basket. I just hope I'm dead and gone when the really bad days come upon us like I predict and fear."

We're still going to have manufacturing, but it's going to be more specialized and "light" as the term goes. After all, we still have farming in this country.

Oh, and as far as Ross Perot goes...10 years of economic data on NAFTA confirms exactly what informed people predicted at the time: a big boost in job creation to Mexico, and more modest but still positive boost to the U.S. Ross himself actually recently set up shop there.

A great book that I recommend to people on these issues is "The Choice: a Parable about Free Trade and Protection" by Russell Roberts of Washington University in St. Louis. It's a wonderful fictional "It's a wonderful life" type of story, but about economics, trade and properly understanding our choices.

rockylee

Yeah I saw that. That was like a twist of the knife in my back when he (Ross) crossed the southern border. :mad:

Rocky

john_324

Now you sound more like Pat Buchanan...

I understand a lot of your criticisms about trade, and I agree with you that there are problems that really need to be examined more thoroughly than they have been. A big one to me is the rising income inequality in this country, and to what extent trade can exacerbate it.

I'm by no means a blind supporter of free trade...I know there are problems it creates, problems that a lot of its supporters simply gloss over. But protectionism, in whatever guise, makes America even worse off. It's better (and more efficient) to keep our markets open and figure out ways to help those who get hurt by trade, than to try to close those markets off, hurting both consumers and producers.

To bring it back to cars, I really don't care for most Asian firm cars myself. I tend to find them without the kind of character I desire. But I'm certainly glad they're in the market here...if it weren't for the Camry or the Accord, we wouldn't finally have something like the Ford Fusion, a car I really like (though I'm not giving up my Mustang just yet...) :shades: