You can't cook market capitalization, dah! Market capitalization is determined by current price times number of outstanding shares. There is no cooking involved.
Feudal Kings and Lords derive their privileges that are not at all freemarket. In fact, one of the first things that happened when freemarket place start to emerge in Europe was the reduction of feudal Kings and Lords. Personal slaves attach to their masters, once again, due to political enforcement. Freemarket is anathema to slavery.
The reason why you are finding the US becoming more like Russia, China and Cuba is, guess what? The US is becoming more and more centrally controlled by the government. Russia, China and Cuba all have government-paid education through college; they all have national healthcare; they all have nattional pention plans; they all have very strong unions; they all have extensive poverty support (including housing); they all have extensive government job protection programs; they all have very high effective taxes. Whose political program and economic policy does it sound like? Certainly not anything I'm advocating. When the government has complete control over your healthcare, your kids' education, your retirement, your housing and your job, would you still dare to criticize the government?
You are wrong again. Freemarket in auto industry means cars and better cars are available and consumer living standards improve because they have better cars in ride in instead of wasting their time pushing to the mechanics shop. What country the maker of the better car nominally belongs to is quite irrelevent. There have been plenty new carmakers entering and exiting the US market thanks to freemarket forces, outside the control of the domestic labor unions. BTW, Benz bought Chrysler in order to escape their own labor union in Germany.
I don't know about better cars. One would think with the currency manipulation advantage the Japanese have and long with that large profit margin they could make Mercedes Benz quality in a Camry. I guess buying chrysler hasn't paid off very well for them even though they can treat the UAW like whipping boys and get away with it.
Then you shall see neither the money nor the service. Why? Because the only way bureacrats can get more funding is if the service is failing. So guess what the monopolistic public service provider will do? Just like anyone who is capable of optimizing for his own benefit, he will make sure the service fails, and more funding is needed.
I haven't seen the government run programs failing in Canada, or Norway. I understand you can use some country's to defend your argument but I can counter with plenty of country's that were government run service like in healthcare has paid off for both the patient and doctor.
You just showed misunderstanding of what "robber baron" is, but in any case, I actually like your implication of calling the government "robber baron" The problem with your thesis is of course, then instead of focusing on creating that $1 wealth to begin with, the rich Peter will focus his energy on developing skills how to make that 87 cents of every dollar that others make, as that would be a much more profitable endeavor. That would be the end of production increases, the source of rising living standards. Everyone just fight over that 87 cents instead. Pretty much summarizes what happens in a socialist economy.
I disagree with you. They already are fighting over the $0.87 because the doctor and the insurance will spend large sums of profit fighting over it. This is why the cost of healthcare is so high. The doctor think he deserves it and the insurance company thinks the doctor is over charging the insurance company. I think if we are going to have to pay for the fighting we might as well let the government replace the insurance company and set the price for the service to eliminate the fight all togeather. Then the market will determine if more doctors are needed thus a pay raise will be granted by the government to lure more college grads into becoming doctors. Also with a universal education system you will have more doctors going into the field assuming the pay is good competing against each other and the drop-out will then have to settle for nursing leaving no shortage of nurses.
Well for one at McDonalds you aren't just making a hamburger to sell. You also are providing a service by taking orders from consumers and waiting on them. i know there is a fine line there but doing that job for about 8 months you have to have a good social skills and patience since you are dealing with the public and want to maintain a good reputation for McDonalds.
The reason why you are finding the US becoming more like Russia, China and Cuba is, guess what? The US is becoming more and more centrally controlled by the government. Russia, China and Cuba all have government-paid education through college; they all have national healthcare; they all have nattional pention plans; they all have very strong unions; they all have extensive poverty support (including housing); they all have extensive government job protection programs; they all have very high effective taxes. Whose political program and economic policy does it sound like? Certainly not anything I'm advocating. When the government has complete control over your healthcare, your kids' education, your retirement, your housing and your job, would you still dare to criticize the government?
That is a system found in a communist country. Again I don't and won't support communism but do think their is some very good benefits in socialism. I've showed you socialist systems that I'd like to adopt as a guide. I'm not saying they are perfect but they are better than we have now. I think a balance of socialism and capitalism is the way to go. As you've said before Norway for instance has this "balance" and it works very well.
We've all had our fun but its time we get more on topic......I know you don't think a tariff is the way to fix the problems with the domestic auto-industry. Do you have any solutions outside of getting rid of the union or saying just make a better product ?????
We all know the next union contract will be a huge cut in pay for the new and old UAW members. I will go out on a limb and say they will make as much or less than the transplants in hourly wages and perhaps will have less benefits than the transplants. If this comes to fruition like I predict then the union is no longer the scapegoat.
What idea's do you or anyone else have outside of the above I just listed ???? Or is product improvement the only obstacle they need to over come to regain the lost market-share ???
One would think with the currency manipulation advantage the Japanese have and long with that large profit margin they could make Mercedes Benz quality in a Camry
We already went through currency manipulation issue ad nauseum. You simply can not call Yen above and below Dollar purchase-power parity both currency manipulation for dumping their products. Camry simply is a better made car; it's not sold on price. Most of them are made in the US anyway.
I haven't seen the government run programs failing in Canada, or Norway.
Then you are blind. Canada is experiencing a shortage of physcians. There are a lot Canadian medical students choosing to work in the US instead after graduation.
we might as well let the government replace the insurance company and set the price for the service to eliminate the fight all togeather. Then the market will determine if more doctors are needed thus a pay raise will be granted by the government to lure more college grads into becoming doctors.
How would the market determine anything if the government sets the price? Do you mean black market? Obviously, if the government is setting the price of medical procedures, the price will be too low because potential patients out-number potential doctors. The result? College grads do not want to be doctors. Patients can wait in long lines for their appointment. Well connected patients (read: government officials) will cut the line. Just like in Russia, China and Cuba, where the government indeed have taken over the insurance companies and the hospitals.
Also with a universal education system you will have more doctors going into the field assuming the pay is good competing against each other and the drop-out will then have to settle for nursing leaving no shortage of nurses.
Not really. First of all the pay won't be good because the government set-price will be too low so as to placate the constituents. It's better to promise cancer cure for $300 but they have to wait in line (and they won't complain about waiting for long before they die) than pricing the cure at the real market price of $300k and only the "rich" can afford it. At $300, the government official making a really clean and "non-corrupt" wage of $3000 a year can afford it when he cuts in front of the line; never mind the real cost of cure is $300k. How would that affect students going to universities? Most will mark time in medical schools. Those who study hard plan on going overseas where doctors are valued at market prices. That's exactly what happens in Russia, China and Cuba; all three have free medicine and free college education for all. That's why when Castro gets sick, they have to fly someone from outside the country; unfortunately for Castro it would be too embarrassing to fly someone from the US.
Enron market capitalization was far greater than that of GM long before book cooking began. You see, book cooking has a funny way of getting telegraphed into the market place when the insiders dump stocks.
That is a system found in a communist country. Again I don't and won't support communism but do think their is some very good benefits in socialism.
For what it's worth, those countries are not communist countries per se because they do still have currency (along with ration coupons, which may sound familiar to people who lived through the 70's). They are socialist countries where the ruling parties called themselves Communist Party (or in some cases, Socialist Party).
I've showed you socialist systems that I'd like to adopt as a guide.
Like which one? Norway and Switzerland have lower taxes than we do.
I'm not saying they are perfect but they are better than we have now. I think a balance of socialism and capitalism is the way to go. As you've said before Norway for instance has this "balance" and it works very well.
I have never said Norway had this "balance." "Balance" is a dirty word that provides a slipery slope for all sorts of hare-brained schemes that do not work in the long run. Norway lives off oil revenue. Before oil, and before next door Sweden embarked on socialism, Norway used to be the source of country-girl nannies for Sweden. Thanks to the lessons shown by the Swedish socialist economic fiasco, Norway embarked on a much more free-market oriented ecomic path with its oil wealth.
IMHO, the real determinent of survival for GM and Ford is whether they can establish themselves in India and China quickly enough before their reputation is in complete tatters. If they can estalish themselves there, with new plants and inexpensive labor, they will have a chance at reconquring the North America market in a decade.
It will take a decade of rebuilding to re-establish the two companies in the minds of NA buyers, into something other than discount brands, outside the truck and Caddy/Lincoln/Jag/Volvo/Saab/Hummer/Corvette/Mazda market. Union workers should start considering working for other carmakers as non-union workers, just like everyone else. Of course, UAW will try to organize Toyota :-)
No, I did not say anything regarding them personally. That relationship however quite accurately describe the relative economic condition between the two countries before the discovery of oil off Norway and Sweden's decline through socialism.
what about a national sales tax or a across the board flat tax like Buchanan proposed about 7 or more years ago ???
This reduction in taxes might give americans a few extra bucks in their pockets to go buy a new domestic product. However wouldn't market prices increase if americans suddenly had this artificial surplus in their pockets ? :surprise:
Norway redistributes its wealth with its oil revenue. Isn't that a form of socialism ??? They also have free education, health care, which by my definition would make them socialist :confuse:
Demand-side economics does have a way of turning one's mind into a dog chasing its own tail. I stopped doing that after a while. Supply-side economics would explain this crystal clear: if you get to keep more of the money you earn every day; wouldn't you be more interested in working? Lower taxes means producers would get to keep more of the money they earn therefore more incentive to produce. Therefore, more products and services will be available for consumption for all, and higher standard of living follows.
Norway only has 5 million people. It's the size of a typical city in the US, Russia, India or China. With the oil it produces, Norway does not have to make anything else internally to keep the 5 million people on decent living standards. They can afford to waste time anyway they want in order to keep populance content. Remarkably, Norwegian government has followed the path of low taxation and free enterprise. Free education and free healthcare are available there only because they can be had without really taxing the people. With low taxes, they attract enough Swedish and German doctors from across the border to take care of Norwegians anyway.
Well it sounds great but I still see the potential for pooling by the service providers.
I do think a flat-tax is the best approach in a capitalist government. 7% across the board from the riches person to the poorest person. Every business also. I mean everybody gets taxed the same.
The other option is a national sales tax. You get to keep all your money until you buy something. I'd be willing to look into that option also. Illegal Aliens, and people paid under the table would finally get taxed.
These idea's all would help the auto-industry because like you said more people could keep their money.
However that still doesn't neccessarily solve outsourcing :sick:
Well, Norway exports 2.7 million barrels of oil per day (more than Iran). That's more than half a barrel per person per day, or roughly 200 barrels per year, per person. We on the other hand import roughly 15 million barrels per day. It's hard to get money for importing :-) We are pretty deep in a hole on that one.
I think we have to look at history a little closer to clarify those statements. The price of gold was essentially "fixed" at $20.67/oz. by an act of congress in 1837. A $20 gold coin has .9675 oz. of pure gold in it. At $800/oz., that coin is worth $775, so it would be foolish of the govt. to offer the $20 it is legally "worth". In 1900, we went on the "gold standard". In 1933 FDR passed a law prohibiting Americans from holding monetary gold. This act also SET the price of gold at $35/oz. It stayed that way until1972, when gold was "revalued at $38/oz., then $42.22 in 1973. In 1975, ALL restriction on holding gold were removed. It was Then that the FREE MARKET, with all it's UNSCRUPULOUS SPECULATORS that sent the price skyrocketing. As for the US automakers, if it weren't for pioneers in the '20's that formed companies like GM, many of those independant brands (Chevy, Buick, etc)may have gone under after 1929. Companies like Cord (makers of Cords, Auburns, AND Dusenbergs) went under not because of GM, but because people couldn't afford their luxurious cars during the depression. While other camakers (Packard, Studebaker, Hupmobile) survived. After WWII, companies such as Fraiser, and Kaiser, and Tucker DID start up, only to be killed by ferocious competition by the likes of GM, Ford, and Chrysler. Did the UAW have any hand in this, I'm not sure, but I can't see why if they were all union shops. As for Studebaker, in 1954 or 1955 they were in trouble from their OWN MISMANAGEMENT! They bought Packard, thinking they could bolster their product line, but ultimately, Packards debt service, as well as Studebakers MISMANAGEMENT sent the company belly up. They stopped production of autos in 1965 or'66 and live on as STP.
I just wanted to comment on this and then I think I need to get out of this thread it is tooooooooooooooooo painful...
I actually like UPS....I bet you hate the Teamsters then.
I don't hate the teamesters they had their job to do and I had mine. Most of the time our two jobs intersected but not always.
I was an hourly worker at UPS before I was promoted to management right after I graduated college. Since UPS promotes exclusively from within everyone at the company, well just about everyone, was an hourly worker at one point.
Up until the late 80's early 90's there used to be a rule that before anyone could be promoted to a management position they had to be a driver for a set amount of time first. Eventually that was discontinued as the amount of training required to make someone a capable driver was too much and you couldn't waste it on someone who was only going to do it for a few months.
What you are missing is that gold and silver are the Constitutionally defined money. The US Consitution explicitly stipulates that no government shall emit currency that is not fully redeemable in gold or silver. The "fix" was not a price fix for gold, but a fix for the value of dollar. What we hold today are "Federal Reserve Notes," an obligation ("note") that is only redeemable in more "notes."
It's funny how the "unscrupulous speculators" get blamed when it was the government that stole the dollar itself. Gold is not an isolated commodity. If you look at the price of oil etc.. you see the same massive price increase since the beginning of FDR administration. What happened is a massive debasement of dollar; otherwise, you'd have to accuse everyone ever produced any commodity, products or rendered any service (including labor) of being "unscrupulous speculators" (hmm, why isn't the Union blamed as "unscrupulous speculators" when they demanded forward-looking inflation adjustors??) What really took place was the debasement of national unit of account by scrupulous politicians. That's also the reason why our savings rate is so low, because we no longer have a real money.
Regarding the union and audo industry consolidation. The riddle is quite simple: GM set worker benefits in such a way that it was cost prohibitive to competitors with smaller economy of scale, counting on UAW to force it onto the smaller firms and bankrupt them. Sure, companies come and go under normal circumstances. What happened was the barrier to entry set up by such a union labor contract forced the smaller players under and kept new entrants out.
Sometimes I wonder if the government should put together a job creation squad, that marches around the blocks and beat up brand new cars and old cars alike with crow bars, so that the body shops will be kept busy :-)
There are a lot of accounting job opportunities for accountants and tax attorneys (IRS employees are often one of the two types already listed anyway) even without a complicated tax code. In fact, one day, someone is going to realize the complications may well land many of them in jails due to sudden changes in public whim, such as the Enron scandal. What passes for brilliant financial engineering in prosperous time may well become "crime" when a scapegoat is needed.
IMHO, a sales tax or VAT tax rate going much beyond 10% would face significant collection problem. Much of the economy may well go to cash basis or underground altogether.
No, the automakers tried to bankrupt smaller companies by outspending them. That is why in the late '40's through the mid '60's cars were completely redesigned every couple of years. No, I find it appalling that GM would go 12 years (1982-1996) w/o redesigning the Century/ Cutlass ciera. In "the standard catalog of american cars" it references this redeisgn/retooling as to why Packard was collapsing under the pressure to retool every couple of years. They found what, on the surface, looked like a good partner in Studebaker. However Studebaker was a management disaster waiting to happen. An article in the March 1964 issue explains all of this. As for the laws regarding coinage and gold (and silver) that came straight from the Official RED BOOK on coins. In either case, there is no pro/anti union agenda.
I quit because my wife Got a job 500 miles away and while UPS has a trailing spouse transfer policy the head office in Atlanta was stalling to aprove my transfer.
So I came up here on my vacation and get another job with better hours that pays significantly more. The benifits aren't nearly as good but the pay and better hours make up for that. I didn't burn any bridges at UPS though so I could go back and get another job there fairly quickly.
Another problem was that I had advanced pretty far pretty quickly and had hit a brickwall. I couldn't advance any farther unless someone above me was transfered, retired or died.
Only two of the people above me were older then thirty so not much of a chance of them dying or retiring and UPS doesn't do transfers that often.
What would be the benefit of reducing one's own profit to bankrupt a small competitor if there were no barrier to keep new-comers coming? Short model cycle was one of the ways GM used, but in and of itself shouldn't really be a big deal: Japanese short model cycles have not exactly driven German cars with longer model cycles out of business. Labor cost was however a thing that the smaller competitors could not escape. UAW created an auto industry wage level that was much higher than average wage level in the the economy; more importantly out of line with their productivity. People outside the industry are the ones buying most of the cars. That's what killed the smaller competitors.
Regarding coinage and gold/silver, the abrogation of metal specie from currency basis is very much the result of union political movement. When the currency is sound and non-inflationary, as the economy enters a prosperous period, more products are made available for purchase, there follows a natural price decline because more goods and services are available for consumer attention. The manufacturers however come under margin pressure. So they make suggestions about cutting nominal wages. A cut would not actually hurt workers because the reduced nominal amount of money would still buy the same amount of goods and services because prices are coming down (if a particular employer cuts wages faster than the general price level coming down, workers would just leave and work for someone else). This natural process also encourages private savings in times of material shortage so that the saved money can buy more in times of abundance, and prevent excessive mal-investment because borrowers were aware that if too many competing projects are started now, prices will drop in coming years. The Labor Union was of course against any nominal wage cut for its members. So the impasse often turned into violence and company bankruptcies. That's why the Federal Reserve Bank was put together in 1913-14, to create a continuously inflating currency, of course in a classic bit of "1984" New-Speak, "to control inflation." There had been hardly any sustained inflation over the 100+ years that the US had been in existence prior to 1914, but has witnessed 3-4000% inflation in the 90 years since then. Of course, accompanied by massive ups and downs in the asset investment classes. Just like Jefferson predicted, when the banks get to define what the dollar is, they will bankrupt Americans first by deflation then by inflation, until we are nothing but paupers and slaves to bankers.
The topic was supposed to be tariffs, not the virtues of being a "goldbug" (a pejorative nickname for those obsessed with the gold standard.) Honestly, I'd leave that subject to conspiracy theory and survivalist websites where the audiences are inclined to leap onto that bandwagon.
As for labor costs, foreign automakers have high costs as well. (German automaker unions aren't exactly pushovers who are lacking in benefits.) Yet these foreign automakers seem to be doing quite nicely in spite of those costs because they actually sell product.
The Big 3 problem is pretty simple -- they build cars that people don't want, so their sales are falling, while the rental fleets that do buy them don't pay very much for them. If they use those very same factories to build cars that people did want, as they once did, then profits would be strong and everyone would be happy.
There are some good reasons why Americans fell out of love with their own cars, and started preferring cars made elsewhere. When those in Detroit accept that they screwed up and make amends by giving the consumer a bit of credit and offering them better products, happy days will be here again. If they want to keep blaming everyone and everything but themselves, and pretend that the products are just great, then they'll fail.
I am thinking the same way. A VAT tax may be coming. Those that chose to switch to a Roth IRA will be basically screwed at that point.
A flat tax sounds interesting until you realize it will never happen due to the melding of socialism with our form of government. If everyone paid a flat tax the poor to poorest would pay a tax each year. I don't think people making say $12K per year are going to be paying taxes, unless it is a VAT tax, or current state sales taxes. I could visualize the million man march on Washington. They were talking about vouchers, or some sort of offsets for those at different levels of poverty if they had a so called flat tax. In other words, it would not be flat. It would end up right were the current tax structure left off. And people would be saying it is not fair, and that the rich now pay less. Well, who do you suppose pay most of the taxes now? If you pay in nothing, how is that have a beef with the tax structure; a question to ask those barking about level playing fields and blah,blah,blah. Basically it all amount to the redistribution of wealth, the Robbin Hood is good theme. -Loren
>As for labor costs, foreign automakers have high costs as well. (German automaker unions aren't exactly pushovers who are lacking in benefits.) Yet these foreign automakers seem to be doing quite nicely in spite of those costs because they actually sell product
Do you mean the same German automakers you like as in this post from the Cadillac discussion??? Hehe>>
"NOT GET A BMW. He thinks his CTS-V is problematic? He'll get to be on first name basis with his BMW repairman. God, what a poor choice if he wants a bulletproof car that never breaks down. I actually laughed at his complaining about the CTS having problems and his saying that he should just get a 335i - as if it is any better.
I'm not sure what that post has to do with my comment that Germans pay high wages, yet still turn a profit. Do you disagree that German automakers earn high wages?
I concur, though some of the new product is showing signs to be optimistic about. As a whole, it is product lacking, with a few cars made by the Big Two I may consider.
GM and Ford, as well as Chrysler, I am sure laughed at the funny little car called the VW Beetle when it first came ashore. And most people shook there heads at first sight of little toy cars made by Subaru and Honda way back when. They aren't laughing now. Rather than telling the consumer what we should be driving, they listened, perfected and eventually produced the standard of quality cars. In the case of German cars, it was driving experience, and the Euro look which caught the attention. Price wise, Japan and German cars are not all that inexpensive up front to buy when compared to those made by GM and Ford, yet they are not hurting for buyers. The German owned Chrysler company appeared to getting on track with new products like the PT and 300, but now seems to slipping back into mediocrity with cars like the Sebring and selling the Chery line. On one hand it is Hemi this n' that, and RAM trucks are tough, yet on the other let's sell FWD econo cars and what appears to be the rebirth of the ION car, the Sebring. I think the Avenger will look better, in all fairness to Chrysler. Anyway, you get the point, they appear to be all over the map. BMW, Mercedes and Audi make luxury, and sporty cars. VW has good handling FWD cars. In America, it looks like Cadillac is doing well in respect to having a purpose. Sure they build trucks/SUV things, but for the most part they have gotten away from the past missteps, like the Cimmeron and Catera. Finally, some direction! Talking Bold Moves, how about the CTS! Tell Ford, that was a Bold Move. -Loren
Very insightful analysis. Unfortunately that is reality. People do not complain about the wealth taken away from them if they don't see it to begin with. The lower overall tax rate due to an entire population vigilant against tax will be far more beneficial to the poor than to the rich due to the effect of diminishing return (an opportunity is worth more to those who have little than those who have plenty). Robbin Hoods are usually played by men like the Kaiser and Napoleon III in real life: the emporer reaching down to the masses, and pinch a few barons (alternative power centers) once in a while. Before you know it, people have no choice but marching to the drum beatings of the emperor. I'm tring hard not to invoke Godwin's rule, for the man who really brought national healthcare to Europe (and a whole sleu of government sponsored benefits for workers) was . . . :-) That seems to be the overall theme of typical development of civilizations in its late stages. The English tradition of Magna Carta (constitutional balance between baronial power vs. central monarch), which ultimately leading to pluralistic democracy that we are familiar with, is very much an odd occurence.
IMHO, German auto industry is about 20-30 years behind that of the US in terms of economic rise and decline. Much of Germany auto industry was rebuilt in the 1950's (war and occupation not only completely reshuffled the factories but also the workers because the German labor union became [non-permissible content removed]-affiliated in the 30's and 40's; so a new group of people became necessary before factories were restarted), analogous to what happened in the US in the 1920's and 30's (proliferation and then consolidation). The quality problems since the 90's is analogous to what happened to the domestics of the 70's. It's what happens when sons and grandsons of the original union workers take over. They enjoy the cushy jobs but know nothing first hand about hardship. There is no more voluntary drive to maintain high standards in order to justify high pay; it's all taken for granted. That's pretty much what happens when you give people 100% secure jobs. The first generation is fine; the second is less; by the time of the third, it's almost all crap. No different from the hereditory wealthy.
That also means, I will expect Toyota to start having big problems starting in the next 5-10 years. Japanese auto industry saw its most rapid expansion in the late 1960's and early 70's.
I was almost positive you'd say Lexus but it's interesting that you said the Chrysler 300-C Hemi, because I'd consider it as a less-expensie alternative to Cadillac as well, that is unless DCX actually builds the Imperial. My other choice would ne the Buick Lucerne CXS. The only thing Lincoln had that would interest me was the Town Car despite it's antiquated design.
Back in the day I'd have considered a Mercedes S-Class, but seeing my brother-in-law's problems with his S430 has probably frightened me away forever. Any problems I have had with my Cadillacs compared to his Mercedes is like comparing an upset stomach to cancer.
The Lexus LS is about the only Japanese car on my radar. Thing is, some people see through Lexus. I told my younger brother I was considering a Lexus LS430 and he said, "Why the heck do you want a Toyota?"
I most wholeheartedly agree. Some of these guys have so much money it would be impossible for them or the next five generations of their heirs to spend. After a certain level it is just a matter of keeping score. If you want to be remembered as a great man, share your wealth while you're still alive. I'd want to be remembered as "Mr. Lemko was a kind generous man who truly cared for the workers who created his wealth from his second in command to the guy who emptied the wastebaskets" rather than "(Expetive) Lemko was a greedy SOB! I'm only going to his funeral to see him dead!"
VWs' are assembled in Mexico. Perhaps all the parts have problems cooked into them, as my PT made in Mexico is without any problem. Looks like problems are in the engineering / electrical. Perhaps too much gadgets? That said, Lexus has gadgets without as many problems. Anyway, don't see how it is the Unions in Germany as a problem. Mercedes seems to be having problems as well. What is the reason, or is it whole basket of issues. Hey, they aren't use Lucas electronics :P Is Lucas still in business? And if so, are they still the Prince of Darkness, or have they modernized into a usable product? -Loren
Lexus parent is Toyota and Cadillac is the child of GM = so what? What is the point?
I am not all that excited about Lexus as a whole, and if I was spending in that range would be more likely to go BMW, or Cadillac. May be other good luxury choices I have not looked into. When I think of Acura, right or wrong, I think of top line Honda, though I realize that is far to simple a reasoning. Oh wait, perhaps some still are? The Lexus, aside of the low end FWD are all completely Lexus and not Toys--are they not? A Cadillac CTS is all Cadillac, unless I got it wrong. Guess some or all the engines came out of Opel development. But a Caddy is not a Chevy, is my take. -Loren
Comments
The reason why you are finding the US becoming more like Russia, China and Cuba is, guess what? The US is becoming more and more centrally controlled by the government. Russia, China and Cuba all have government-paid education through college; they all have national healthcare; they all have nattional pention plans; they all have very strong unions; they all have extensive poverty support (including housing); they all have extensive government job protection programs; they all have very high effective taxes. Whose political program and economic policy does it sound like? Certainly not anything I'm advocating. When the government has complete control over your healthcare, your kids' education, your retirement, your housing and your job, would you still dare to criticize the government?
I don't know about better cars. One would think with the currency manipulation advantage the Japanese have and long with that large profit margin they could make Mercedes Benz quality in a Camry.
Then you shall see neither the money nor the service. Why? Because the only way bureacrats can get more funding is if the service is failing. So guess what the monopolistic public service provider will do? Just like anyone who is capable of optimizing for his own benefit, he will make sure the service fails, and more funding is needed.
I haven't seen the government run programs failing in Canada, or Norway. I understand you can use some country's to defend your argument but I can counter with plenty of country's that were government run service like in healthcare has paid off for both the patient and doctor.
You just showed misunderstanding of what "robber baron" is, but in any case, I actually like your implication of calling the government "robber baron" The problem with your thesis is of course, then instead of focusing on creating that $1 wealth to begin with, the rich Peter will focus his energy on developing skills how to make that 87 cents of every dollar that others make, as that would be a much more profitable endeavor. That would be the end of production increases, the source of rising living standards. Everyone just fight over that 87 cents instead. Pretty much summarizes what happens in a socialist economy.
I disagree with you. They already are fighting over the $0.87 because the doctor and the insurance will spend large sums of profit fighting over it. This is why the cost of healthcare is so high. The doctor think he deserves it and the insurance company thinks the doctor is over charging the insurance company. I think if we are going to have to pay for the fighting we might as well let the government replace the insurance company and set the price for the service to eliminate the fight all togeather. Then the market will determine if more doctors are needed thus a pay raise will be granted by the government to lure more college grads into becoming doctors. Also with a universal education system you will have more doctors going into the field assuming the pay is good competing against each other and the drop-out will then have to settle for nursing leaving no shortage of nurses.
See I have it all solved. :P
Rocky
Wow, could of fooled me, eh ?
Rocky
Rocky
That is a system found in a communist country. Again I don't and won't support communism but do think their is some very good benefits in socialism. I've showed you socialist systems that I'd like to adopt as a guide. I'm not saying they are perfect but they are better than we have now. I think a balance of socialism and capitalism is the way to go. As you've said before Norway for instance has this "balance" and it works very well.
Rocky
We all know the next union contract will be a huge cut in pay for the new and old UAW members. I will go out on a limb and say they will make as much or less than the transplants in hourly wages and perhaps will have less benefits than the transplants. If this comes to fruition like I predict then the union is no longer the scapegoat.
What idea's do you or anyone else have outside of the above I just listed ???? Or is product improvement the only obstacle they need to over come to regain the lost market-share ???
Rocky
We already went through currency manipulation issue ad nauseum. You simply can not call Yen above and below Dollar purchase-power parity both currency manipulation for dumping their products. Camry simply is a better made car; it's not sold on price. Most of them are made in the US anyway.
I haven't seen the government run programs failing in Canada, or Norway.
Then you are blind. Canada is experiencing a shortage of physcians. There are a lot Canadian medical students choosing to work in the US instead after graduation.
we might as well let the government replace the insurance company and set the price for the service to eliminate the fight all togeather. Then the market will determine if more doctors are needed thus a pay raise will be granted by the government to lure more college grads into becoming doctors.
How would the market determine anything if the government sets the price? Do you mean black market? Obviously, if the government is setting the price of medical procedures, the price will be too low because potential patients out-number potential doctors. The result? College grads do not want to be doctors. Patients can wait in long lines for their appointment. Well connected patients (read: government officials) will cut the line. Just like in Russia, China and Cuba, where the government indeed have taken over the insurance companies and the hospitals.
Also with a universal education system you will have more doctors going into the field assuming the pay is good competing against each other and the drop-out will then have to settle for nursing leaving no shortage of nurses.
Not really. First of all the pay won't be good because the government set-price will be too low so as to placate the constituents. It's better to promise cancer cure for $300 but they have to wait in line (and they won't complain about waiting for long before they die) than pricing the cure at the real market price of $300k and only the "rich" can afford it. At $300, the government official making a really clean and "non-corrupt" wage of $3000 a year can afford it when he cuts in front of the line; never mind the real cost of cure is $300k. How would that affect students going to universities? Most will mark time in medical schools. Those who study hard plan on going overseas where doctors are valued at market prices. That's exactly what happens in Russia, China and Cuba; all three have free medicine and free college education for all. That's why when Castro gets sick, they have to fly someone from outside the country; unfortunately for Castro it would be too embarrassing to fly someone from the US.
Rocky
For what it's worth, those countries are not communist countries per se because they do still have currency (along with ration coupons, which may sound familiar to people who lived through the 70's). They are socialist countries where the ruling parties called themselves Communist Party (or in some cases, Socialist Party).
I've showed you socialist systems that I'd like to adopt as a guide.
Like which one? Norway and Switzerland have lower taxes than we do.
I'm not saying they are perfect but they are better than we have now. I think a balance of socialism and capitalism is the way to go. As you've said before Norway for instance has this "balance" and it works very well.
I have never said Norway had this "balance." "Balance" is a dirty word that provides a slipery slope for all sorts of hare-brained schemes that do not work in the long run. Norway lives off oil revenue. Before oil, and before next door Sweden embarked on socialism, Norway used to be the source of country-girl nannies for Sweden. Thanks to the lessons shown by the Swedish socialist economic fiasco, Norway embarked on a much more free-market oriented ecomic path with its oil wealth.
Whatever......
Rocky
It will take a decade of rebuilding to re-establish the two companies in the minds of NA buyers, into something other than discount brands, outside the truck and Caddy/Lincoln/Jag/Volvo/Saab/Hummer/Corvette/Mazda market. Union workers should start considering working for other carmakers as non-union workers, just like everyone else. Of course, UAW will try to organize Toyota :-)
This reduction in taxes might give americans a few extra bucks in their pockets to go buy a new domestic product. However wouldn't market prices increase if americans suddenly had this artificial surplus in their pockets ? :surprise:
Rocky
It won't happen unless Toyota, does something drastic like cut wages in half.
I do agree going to china and india is a good plan to re root themselves in the world from a business perspective.
Rocky
Rocky
I do think a flat-tax is the best approach in a capitalist government. 7% across the board from the riches person to the poorest person. Every business also. I mean everybody gets taxed the same.
The other option is a national sales tax. You get to keep all your money until you buy something. I'd be willing to look into that option also. Illegal Aliens, and people paid under the table would finally get taxed.
These idea's all would help the auto-industry because like you said more people could keep their money.
However that still doesn't neccessarily solve outsourcing :sick:
Rocky
Rocky
I've seen study's that have said 7% would work if everyone paid
I also agree more jobs from small buisness would be created with having a lower rate
Rocky
Rocky
Sleep much?
I just wanted to comment on this and then I think I need to get out of this thread it is tooooooooooooooooo painful...
I actually like UPS....I bet you hate the Teamsters then.
I don't hate the teamesters they had their job to do and I had mine. Most of the time our two jobs intersected but not always.
I was an hourly worker at UPS before I was promoted to management right after I graduated college. Since UPS promotes exclusively from within everyone at the company, well just about everyone, was an hourly worker at one point.
Up until the late 80's early 90's there used to be a rule that before anyone could be promoted to a management position they had to be a driver for a set amount of time first. Eventually that was discontinued as the amount of training required to make someone a capable driver was too much and you couldn't waste it on someone who was only going to do it for a few months.
It's funny how the "unscrupulous speculators" get blamed when it was the government that stole the dollar itself. Gold is not an isolated commodity. If you look at the price of oil etc.. you see the same massive price increase since the beginning of FDR administration. What happened is a massive debasement of dollar; otherwise, you'd have to accuse everyone ever produced any commodity, products or rendered any service (including labor) of being "unscrupulous speculators" (hmm, why isn't the Union blamed as "unscrupulous speculators" when they demanded forward-looking inflation adjustors??) What really took place was the debasement of national unit of account by scrupulous politicians. That's also the reason why our savings rate is so low, because we no longer have a real money.
Regarding the union and audo industry consolidation. The riddle is quite simple: GM set worker benefits in such a way that it was cost prohibitive to competitors with smaller economy of scale, counting on UAW to force it onto the smaller firms and bankrupt them. Sure, companies come and go under normal circumstances. What happened was the barrier to entry set up by such a union labor contract forced the smaller players under and kept new entrants out.
I know it's none of my business but that seems like a very good job to be just quiting. :surprise:
Rocky
There are a lot of accounting job opportunities for accountants and tax attorneys (IRS employees are often one of the two types already listed anyway) even without a complicated tax code. In fact, one day, someone is going to realize the complications may well land many of them in jails due to sudden changes in public whim, such as the Enron scandal. What passes for brilliant financial engineering in prosperous time may well become "crime" when a scapegoat is needed.
So I came up here on my vacation and get another job with better hours that pays significantly more. The benifits aren't nearly as good but the pay and better hours make up for that. I didn't burn any bridges at UPS though so I could go back and get another job there fairly quickly.
Another problem was that I had advanced pretty far pretty quickly and had hit a brickwall. I couldn't advance any farther unless someone above me was transfered, retired or died.
Only two of the people above me were older then thirty so not much of a chance of them dying or retiring and UPS doesn't do transfers that often.
Rocky
Regarding coinage and gold/silver, the abrogation of metal specie from currency basis is very much the result of union political movement. When the currency is sound and non-inflationary, as the economy enters a prosperous period, more products are made available for purchase, there follows a natural price decline because more goods and services are available for consumer attention. The manufacturers however come under margin pressure. So they make suggestions about cutting nominal wages. A cut would not actually hurt workers because the reduced nominal amount of money would still buy the same amount of goods and services because prices are coming down (if a particular employer cuts wages faster than the general price level coming down, workers would just leave and work for someone else). This natural process also encourages private savings in times of material shortage so that the saved money can buy more in times of abundance, and prevent excessive mal-investment because borrowers were aware that if too many competing projects are started now, prices will drop in coming years. The Labor Union was of course against any nominal wage cut for its members. So the impasse often turned into violence and company bankruptcies. That's why the Federal Reserve Bank was put together in 1913-14, to create a continuously inflating currency, of course in a classic bit of "1984" New-Speak, "to control inflation." There had been hardly any sustained inflation over the 100+ years that the US had been in existence prior to 1914, but has witnessed 3-4000% inflation in the 90 years since then. Of course, accompanied by massive ups and downs in the asset investment classes. Just like Jefferson predicted, when the banks get to define what the dollar is, they will bankrupt Americans first by deflation then by inflation, until we are nothing but paupers and slaves to bankers.
As for labor costs, foreign automakers have high costs as well. (German automaker unions aren't exactly pushovers who are lacking in benefits.) Yet these foreign automakers seem to be doing quite nicely in spite of those costs because they actually sell product.
The Big 3 problem is pretty simple -- they build cars that people don't want, so their sales are falling, while the rental fleets that do buy them don't pay very much for them. If they use those very same factories to build cars that people did want, as they once did, then profits would be strong and everyone would be happy.
There are some good reasons why Americans fell out of love with their own cars, and started preferring cars made elsewhere. When those in Detroit accept that they screwed up and make amends by giving the consumer a bit of credit and offering them better products, happy days will be here again. If they want to keep blaming everyone and everything but themselves, and pretend that the products are just great, then they'll fail.
A flat tax sounds interesting until you realize it will never happen due to the melding of socialism with our form of government. If everyone paid a flat tax the poor to poorest would pay a tax each year. I don't think people making say $12K per year are going to be paying taxes, unless it is a VAT tax, or current state sales taxes. I could visualize the million man march on Washington. They were talking about vouchers, or some sort of offsets for those at different levels of poverty if they had a so called flat tax. In other words, it would not be flat. It would end up right were the current tax structure left off. And people would be saying it is not fair, and that the rich now pay less. Well, who do you suppose pay most of the taxes now? If you pay in nothing, how is that have a beef with the tax structure; a question to ask those barking about level playing fields and blah,blah,blah. Basically it all amount to the redistribution of wealth, the Robbin Hood is good theme.
-Loren
Do you mean the same German automakers you like as in this post from the Cadillac discussion??? Hehe>>
"NOT GET A BMW. He thinks his CTS-V is problematic? He'll get to be on first name basis with his BMW repairman. God, what a poor choice if he wants a bulletproof car that never breaks down. I actually laughed at his complaining about the CTS having problems and his saying that he should just get a 335i - as if it is any better.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
GM and Ford, as well as Chrysler, I am sure laughed at the funny little car called the VW Beetle when it first came ashore. And most people shook there heads at first sight of little toy cars made by Subaru and Honda way back when. They aren't laughing now. Rather than telling the consumer what we should be driving, they listened, perfected and eventually produced the standard of quality cars. In the case of German cars, it was driving experience, and the Euro look which caught the attention. Price wise, Japan and German cars are not all that inexpensive up front to buy when compared to those made by GM and Ford, yet they are not hurting for buyers. The German owned Chrysler company appeared to getting on track with new products like the PT and 300, but now seems to slipping back into mediocrity with cars like the Sebring and selling the Chery line.
On one hand it is Hemi this n' that, and RAM trucks are tough, yet on the other let's sell FWD econo cars and what appears to be the rebirth of the ION car, the Sebring. I think the Avenger will look better, in all fairness to Chrysler. Anyway, you get the point, they appear to be all over the map. BMW, Mercedes and Audi make luxury, and sporty cars. VW has good handling FWD cars. In America, it looks like Cadillac is doing well in respect to having a purpose. Sure they build trucks/SUV things, but for the most part they have gotten away from the past missteps, like the Cimmeron and Catera. Finally, some direction! Talking Bold Moves, how about the CTS! Tell Ford, that was a Bold Move.
-Loren
That also means, I will expect Toyota to start having big problems starting in the next 5-10 years. Japanese auto industry saw its most rapid expansion in the late 1960's and early 70's.
Back in the day I'd have considered a Mercedes S-Class, but seeing my brother-in-law's problems with his S430 has probably frightened me away forever. Any problems I have had with my Cadillacs compared to his Mercedes is like comparing an upset stomach to cancer.
The Lexus LS is about the only Japanese car on my radar. Thing is, some people see through Lexus. I told my younger brother I was considering a Lexus LS430 and he said, "Why the heck do you want a Toyota?"
-Loren
I am not all that excited about Lexus as a whole, and if I was spending in that range would be more likely to go BMW, or Cadillac. May be other good luxury choices I have not looked into. When I think of Acura, right or wrong, I think of top line Honda, though I realize that is far to simple a reasoning. Oh wait, perhaps some still are? The Lexus, aside of the low end FWD are all completely Lexus and not Toys--are they not? A Cadillac CTS is all Cadillac, unless I got it wrong. Guess some or all the engines came out of Opel development. But a Caddy is not a Chevy, is my take.
-Loren