Does America Even Need Its Own Automakers?

fezo

Yeah, that works.

Back when I bought our 00 Accord I really wanted a Passat but got cold feet. Just as well. Six months later the only nearby Volkswagen dealership burned to the ground. Seven years later they have started rebuilding but still aren't near opening.

cooterbfd

(1) Regardless where is a product made, as long as it has great quality at a reasonable price, people will buy it

I just hope that if push comes to shove, we'll still be able to get supplies we need in case any supplying country becomes hostile towards us (i.e. China, or S. Korea if the North were to invade, or any S. american country aligning w/ a country like Venezuela). I don't think we can trust anybody but ourselves, and even that is a stretch.

nvbanker

Trade needs to be reciprocal, and so do barriers. That means that if South Korea doesn't allow the US to export cars to them (and they don't) we reciprocate by restricting or eliminating their export of cars to us

I'm a free market guy, who would prefer to buy American where I can, and I agree with what you're saying as well. I'm all over the place, but here's the deal. I have driven mostly American (owned companies) cars all my life. But when Lincoln quit making luxury cars (about 05) I went to Lexus. I did it with not much remorse because Ford got what they deserved - they abandoned me, I didn't leave them.

As for where the car is made, I don't really care. I would rather buy GM or Ford, but if they make the car in Mexico to be competitive, that's fine. Toyota makes most of their cars in the US now - how strange? Not really, it escapes the import duty that way. These companies must do what they must do to remain competitive or die. Nobody thinks GM and Ford going away will be good for America - but they have to perform, and management and the unions must do whatever it takes to be competitive and survive. Anyway, that's how I feel.

nwng

the made in the usa NB would costs about $90. I once bought them for someone who insisted on usa made NB ( at their factory store right here in MA)

And that someone lives in china, where you can get factory overflows dirt cheap.

bpizzuti

Well, that certainly says something about a possible quality difference, doesn't it?

fezo

Where is MA is New Balance? I should know but all my shoe says is China....

jchan2

I do know that a lot of my family members tell me to buy "Made in USA" products and plenty of Bounty paper towels for them whenever I visit...

Bounty and "Made in USA" stuff is pricey, and I guess it's cheaper here, so whenever I go I just load up on it.

I guess the allure of something made in the US is worth something to family members overseas... (that and the thought of getting the quilted quicker picker upper for less $$ )

cooterbfd

First, I think GM is marketing (and therefore making) Hummers in Africa as an alternative to Landcruisers and Range Rovers, where Toyota and Land Rover have cornered the market for safaris and nature preserves.

Second, while companies like AM General, Cat, Prevost, Hughes, etc. may be able to make enough for defense today, how about if we encounter another situation like WW II? We will NEED american companies like GM, Ford, and Chrysler to pick up the slack and start building these things for a scaled up war. I think it would be dangerous to rely on a foreign company HQ'ed in a country purported to be our ally for any extra manufacturing we may need just because they have plants here. I know I'm being a little vague, but I could forsee a situation where we need the manufacturing capacity, and if all we had to rely on to pick up the slack was Toyota or Honda, and the Japanese gov't said "No, don't" because they don't believe in the American policy that led to this (hypothetical) major conflict, and the Administration was hesitant about just seizing their plants because they were trying to coax the Japanese to see things our way, it could be dangerous.

Third, Humvees may be a poor excuse, but retaining our manufacturing base and job retention is an EXCELLENT reason for keeping the big 3 alive.

Mr_Shiftright

I don't see how the government could afford to keep automakers alive if they were not profitable....and besides, that violates every conservative principle of economics, every tenet of the champions of Social Darwinism, and even a communist wouldn't like the idea, as he would find it possibly fascist (a joining of corporations and the state to maintain power).

I can't imagine such an idea ever flying in this country if, indeed, the Big Three went broke. They would just have to die off and be replaced by something else that can make a profit.

Our weapons manufacturers are rolling in money--they are much better off than our car makers.

So if you're saying to turn car makers into weapons manufacturers, rather than some dual-purpose enterprise, well that might work. Just convert the infrastructure.

But we couldn't possibly need or sell that much weapon production.

I suppose we could mothball all the factories, like we do with the mothball fleets ????

fezo

You have to remember that in WWII these companies that are permanent weapons makers weren't around or were much smaller companies.

We now have a manufacturing base that is capable of turning out astonishing amounts of military hardware. Darn good thing, too, since we are about to get an enormous bill for replacements for all the stuff we're wearing out overseas.

Whichever side of the fence you might be on you have to know that's gonna be a heck of a bill.

british_rover

I was about to call complete BS on GM making hummers in africa but then I found this...

H3 in South Africa

People keep refering to WWII but they forget that modern weapons and military vehicles don't have a thing to do with most modern vehicles.

I mean a sherman tank and a tractor or construction bulldozer are not that different. The tank just has armor and a gun while the bulldozer does not.

A M1A1 does not share anything at all with a big CAT bulldozer. Hell the armor isn't even made out of any kind of metal that you can even describe. The heaviest armor rating on the M1 is equivalent to 600 mm(23.6 inches) of conventional armor for kinetic rounds and 1,300 mm(51.2 inches) of conventional armor for chemical rounds.

M1A1

gagrice

Whichever side of the fence you might be on you have to know that's gonna be a heck of a bill.

That is the reason all you see in Congress is talk. They all know when we quit building war materials this country will go into a MASSIVE recession. We have no other giant projects to sustain the current economy. Talk of GM or Ford or Chrysler going away is very premature. We did bail Chrysler out once before. We subsidize every other industry, why not automakers?

fezo

I suspect that the reason people balk at bailing out automakers (even as we bailed out Chrysler once and that was a successful bailout) is sheer size.

However, as you point out, losing that kind of chunk out of our economy would indeed start us on a major recession. It would probably be cheaper in teh long run to do the bailout.

gagrice

They would need leadership that has a plan. I don't think GM is to the point of needing a bail out. Ford may be, I don't really know how bad they are bleeding. The UAW plays a big part in this. They have a couple choices. They can get out and organize Toyota and Honda or go backwards on wages and benefits for the Big 3.

The UAW needs to have ads showing line workers from the Big 3 driving BMW, Cadillacs and Mercedes to work. That would get the attention of the Honda and Toyota workers that can only afford a Yaris or Fit.

bpizzuti

it's not metal at all: the armor is a ceramic composite called Chobham.

An Abrams still uses a lot of automotive technology. They need transmissions, suspension pieces, gagues...that's why it's necessary to have a strong automotive industry in order to build tanks. Most tanks need engines too (The Abrams uses a turbine, so it's an exception).

Remember, we don't ONLY make the Abrams...there's this little thing called the Bradley which uses a combustion engine...then the Marine corps LAVs and Army Stryker vehicles, which are also ICE, and use wheels rather than treads. Again, in addition to the engine and fuel system, you need shocks, struts, chassis engineering, transmissions, controls and gauges, tires, wheels....

Then of course, there's the military trucks, FAVs, and HMMWVs, which ARE in fact automobiles. Want to import them?

bumpy

It would also be a public relations disaster. Lots of people think UAW line workers are overpaid as it is.

gagrice

I doubt it. The goal is to let the HonToy workers see they are under paid. If other groups also responded to wanting a union job it would benefit all unions. I think corporate greed has just about reached the point that spawned unions a long time ago. In fact I would say corporate leaders today are worse than those that forced people to unionize.

bumpy

Spend some time in other automotive forums. Every time the UAW comes up, they get excoriated as ungrateful, gold-plated goons doing their best to suck the domestics dry regardless of the consequences. There's not much truth to it, but that is the prevailing stereotype. The reaction to your proposed ad wouldn't be "I should make that much money," but "They shouldn't make that much money."

gagrice

I guess it is hard for me to understand that mentality. I always felt I deserved a share in the profits if my labor contributed. I am sure the UAW will have some hard times. I do think it is more the entitlements built into the contracts than the actual wages for actual work done. Being paid when not working is a big negative for me to accept. Our union gave up full medical for retirees 20 years ago as excessive. 3 of my last 5 GM trucks was built in Mexico. The UAW is probably the reason.

Mr_Shiftright

But what if it's not a "bailout" but a buyout? Even Great Britain gave up subsidizing Rolls Royce and sold it to the Germans. It was bleeding too much money.

This would be an excellent study for economists, who apply research without adding any personal value systems. So they'd look at the hard numbers of buying out the automakers and running them as national industries vs. letting them collapse. Which scenario has the most adantageous result?

Economists don't factor "pride" or "disgrace" into the formula....which, when making big, serious economic decisions, is usually a good thing....usually.

It is true, though, that America is basically on a full-time war economy. Such is the price of Empire.

MrShiftright
Visiting Host

bpizzuti

"Such is the price of Empire."

Hey there, that's the Global War on Terror, you evil liberal communist terrorist you. :P Or is it "Spreading Democracy?" this week? I forget. :shades:

You know, "pride" and "disgrace" might not be factored in, but they DO have value...so does prestige, come to think of it. Sometimes those non-physical factors can really skew an equation.

By the way, did they just update the forum software? I see some new icons lined up kind of weird.

Mr_Shiftright

Yep, new icons for your linking enjoyable. Go play with them, but don't forget to come back! :P

"pride" or "prestige" have to be grounded in reality. Taken as absolutes, they are dangerous concepts and taken as absolutes, they are lousy economics I think. Did Rolls Royce's "pride" make a better car? Not at all. It was a false pride, founded on nothing but distant memories.

Who wants to subsidize a corpse? Not me.



MrShiftright
Visiting Host

bpizzuti

well, sometimes pride, especially national pride, can seriously impact an economy. Plus, people who take pride in their work tend to produce a better, higher-quality product. Not too sure how to account for these factors in an equation though.

How do these new icons work? There's no hover-over help in Firefox on the things.

Mr_Shiftright

Ehhh....I really don't think national pride has a direct economic effect...it's the loss of work that hurts....I don't think assembly line workers in Detroit would care if they built a Cadillac or a Daewoo if there was a good paycheck.

icons: you can get the hover-over add-on at the Firefox website.

MrShiftright
Visiting Host

cooterbfd

...it's the loss of work that hurts....I don't think assembly line workers in Detroit would care if they built a Cadillac or a Daewoo if there was a good paycheck

I think THAT is why we need our own automakers: American jobs. Many people look in disgust at the "job banks" that get UAW employees at places like GM 1 yr pay to sit home, but in an economic turndown, you don't want these laid off employees to go work for the competition, whether it's Ford or Toyota, because when you need them back, they won't be there. That means the other companies get YOUR experienced workers that YOU paid to train, and now you have to train a whole new set of employees. May seem frivolous, but makes some sense.

Look at what happened during WW II, we were MASS PRODUCING Rolls Royce designed V-12 plane engines at Packard better than they could. Why? We had a well trained work force. THAT is why we need an auto industry.
If we needed 250,000 tanks right now, could those companies build them that fast? I doubt it. But guess what? GM, Ford, and Chrysler DO have a well trained workforce that could. All the government would have to do is ask, and like 65 years ago it's done. NO QUESTIONS ASKED!!!! Could we say the same if GM were owned by, say Renault?????

fezo

I'll hate myself for asking but what's it called on the Firefox site?

I don't suppose I thin the world will fall apart if the big three don't survive but I do think if we are to throw money at them like we did at Chrysler that is what it will be made to appear.

Maybe someone could refresh my memory on the logistics of the auto plants producing military hardware in WWII. Was this not something stronger than a polite request from the government? I know several automakers welcomed it because the depression was killing them and they could make much more producing aircraft than cars. I'm not an expert in the field here so if you are please enlighten me.

The one thing that really gets me is that you had all these companies that were struggling - Packard, Studebaker, Hudson, what have you and they came out of WWII in good shape - and then managed to go broke in, at most, 20 years.

There were some pretty classic bad decisions that made some of this possible - like Packard's decision to throw their fate in with Studebaker when the Studebaker folks had more or less already decided to go broke as painlessly to themselves as they could.

I actually remember when we'd go to my mom's folks we'd pass by a Packard dealer who then became a Studebaker dealer. At the time I thought they were just making bad choices... Once Studebaker folded it became a transmission shop and it still is today.

lemko

...GM did more than just build tanks. The GM Guide Division (the one that makes lights, turn signals, stop lights) made a handy little submachine gun nicknamed the "greasegun." It cost only $15 dollars to produce versus $300 for the Thompson or "Tommy Gun."

Mr_Shiftright

They should have used it to clean out their boardroom in the 1970s :P

The bad management decisions are one reason I don't want to see the government prop these companies up. They have some really bad habits.

How can they keep not making money and survive?

MrShiftright
Visiting Host

bumpy

There is a long history of companies keeping skilled workers on the payroll during lean periods. The lean period has to end at some point, though, or the company does.

bumpy

How can they keep not making money and survive?

In GM's case, they emptied out the cupboard in the last few years and firesaled just about every collateral operation on hand (Allison and the medium-duty truck lines are up on the block now). Ford hocked itself to stay afloat. Their overseas operations are doing pretty well, which raises the question of how long it will take for GM and Ford to jettison their North American suckholes to protect the rest of the business.

fezo

"How can they keep not making money and survive?"

Well, if they're Ford they mortgage all their buildings and pray whatever the next plan is that it works.

GM? I dunno. They are clearing small profits of late. If they can keep in that direction that would be fine.

m6vx

Well, if they're Ford they mortgage all their buildings and pray whatever the next plan is that it works.

That would be the Way, Way, Way, Way Forward Plan, right?

cooterbfd

Actually, this is interesting:

I read that Stalin was absolutely enamored with the Packards of the late '30's and early '40's (me too), to the point where Roosevelt kind of strongarmed Packard management into selling Russia the tooling for those cars during WWII. After that they didn't have the money to make that tooling, and ended up staying with that "upsidedown bathtub" look after the war. They only sold because people were starved for new autos. By the mid '50's Packard had plenty of dough, but had lost the lustre from the late '30's and were pressured into doing something, because the Big 3 were so aggressive w/ new models every couple years. They figured by teaming up it would save on tooling expenses, but Studebaker's mismanagement took all that money, and drove them right into the ground

fezo

That is interesting. I had not heard that one.

I knew that when Hank Williams hit big at first he was riding around in a Packard until he got the word that Packard wasn't king of the hill anymore and that he didn't own :the very best." Well those were fighting words to Hank and he immediately replaced it with the Cadillac Fleetwood.

m6vx - you understand Ford very well...

I was actually saddened that Bill Ford didn't work out. That would have been a good story and he came in saying all the right things. He just didn't do any of them.

Mr_Shiftright

The reason the Independents prospered for a while after World War II is that they got priority for steel and other vital wartime resources.

Once this government "subsidy" expired, the Independents collapsed under normal competition from the Big Three, as one might expect. Without the ability or capital to introduce new models and modern engines, it was just a matter of time before GM Ford and Chrysler ground the Indies into the dirt. Which they did with glee.

I never believed the Packard-Stalin story. I think it's just urban legend. The Russians just copied the car from Packards that were shipped to them, along with the 400,000 or so trucks they got from us. The Russians rode to Berlin on American trucks (and in Packards we presume) and given what they did to Germany, it was money well spent IMO.

They also copied the B-29 bomber from ones that crashed in Russia. They were very clever at copying things, they didn't need any Presidential intervention to be rascals.

fezo

Now you'd be the guy who would know this - wasn't Kaiser basically a product of people wanting cars that didn't look like they were from the late 30s and they were able to market such a thing quickly? Of course they got ground up and spit out by the Big 3.

cooterbfd

I read that in an article written in the early "70's posted on the Packard car club web site.

Packard DID introduce a new V-8 to replace the old inline 8 in 1953. In 1955, they introduced a new line of cars that were a hit, but by 1957 they decided to badge engineer Packards on Stude platforms w/ Stude engines, instead of vice versa. By 1958, the Big 3 had their new designs out after a miniscule 3 year run. For Packard, that was that. All the loyal customers abandoned them. Sounds to me what I'd expect out of a Chinese Buick

Mr_Shiftright

Yeah that was just cold war propaganda...like saying "oh well, the Russians are so stupid they couldn't build anything unless they copied the plans we gave them". I'm sure the Germans used to say the same thing until they met their first T-34 tank. The story really makes no sense and Packard historians have long denied it. Geezer-talk IMO. Like FDR had nothing better to do, right?

I wouldn't say Packard cars were a "hit" in 1955, although they were technically quite interesting that's true. Sales were actually really really dismal.

The Independents got all the steel they wanted from reserves, so they could build new body styles and/or rev up production very quickly. The Big Three had to make 1941 model cars all over again in 1946-47 and they couldn't tool up as fast.

So the Indies got out of the gate a little faster, and that lead was good for a few years until the 600 lb Gorillas caught up with them.

If you step back far enough, the entire US auto industry is a history of brutal attrition, big shake-outs and a lot of dead bodies....as many as perhaps 1,500 or 2,000 dead makes of cars over the last 100 years.

MrShiftright
Visiting Host

cooterbfd

No, they sold 54,000 in '55, up from 32,000 in '54 (old body style) Which was pretty good for them, considering the list prices were between $2,600 and $6,000. In '56, they dropped to about 27,000 units. This is when I think they panicked, and made a bad move going to all Stude bodies.

cooterbfd

Sold 140,777 units w/ prices ranging from $3,500 to $4,900

Mr_Shiftright

yeah that ain't much. I think Corvette sells more than 32,000 a year all by itself. Could GM exist just selling Corvettes?

ironic that '55 was a better year than '56, because '55 models had a lot of problems with engine oiling and suspension. 1956 was a much better car.

Anyway the lesson from Packard is "grow or die"...after a while of continued loss of business, you reach a certain base level of economy of scale wherein it just doesn't pay to stay in business anymore.

stuckinohio

Lets just dismantle all industry. Hell, GM and Ford aren't making enough money for you? How bout those airlines? Lets ditch them too, their not making money. Hell ya, think of all the money saved. Lets get rid of any american industry job and start importing things. Harley Davidson... we can get other brands from China, and there's even more profit that way! My Jayco camper, I'm sure there's some pioneering stud over in Japan that could design one and would love to sit it in my driveway.

Whoa, better yet, lets export our blue collar people even! Get rid of those pesky Americans that can't afford the best our economy has to offer. They're just holding us back anyway. Think of it, for every american, we could import 5 illegal mexicans to work in our grocery stores. Hey Kroger, are you listening? Why bother with that pesky union you have here that starts pay at 5.25/hour (whoopty do you may ask? That's what I thought working for Kroger for 3 years through high school and part of college, watching the union take the equiv. of 2 hours pay from me a week, but I got a dime raise every year. ) when you could get some chinese immigrants to do it all for a dollar a day, and then americans still wouldn't care because the job was getting done.

Oooh, another brilliant idea. Lets get rid of these american banks! The dollar isn't what it was anymore, so lets just dismantle our entire banking system, and import other countries currencies. It'll save so much time.

Damn. So many ways, so little time to screw over everyone. I'm sure we can collectively keep the ideas coming. Join in!

Once this kind of crap starts, where do we draw the line saving a buck? Because next... it could be YOUR job. You might not care that doing something this stupid could screw up millions of American's lives, but if we start down this slippery slope, you can't always know where it will end. YOUR job could be next...

94accord_lover

is the fact that the money is not staying in the United States. When you buy a Hyundai, where does the money go? South Korea. When you buy a Honda, where does the money go? Japan. When you buy a Chrysler, where does (or did) the money go? GERMANY!! Not America, None of them! When I buy a Chevrolet, I know that the money is going back to corporate in Detroit, which makes me feel a little better about my purchase. I know that some are built in Mexico (like the HHR and some Suburbans), but the money from the sale stays in America. Yea, I think we need an American auto industry, because it may turn into our dependence on foreign oil. We need to produce our own stuff, that goes for China too. We need to bring industry back to America, and keep what we got already. I am very much a nationalist, and believe in the policy of isolationism. If we ever did have to cut ourselves off from the rest of the world, we would be (already are, really) in deep trouble. Like stated before, we have a lot of skill and industrial talent here, and if we ever needed to utilize it in time of war, we would have it. Yea, Honda and Toyota build good cars, but GM especially is catching up quickly. American car makers really never did have an incentive to build good quality cars until Japanese became a formidable competition. The arrogance hurt them bad, like Roger Smith, one of GM's ex-Presidents who nearly killed the company, once said "People are going to buy American no matter what the product is just because it's American". We all know that's not true, and American car companies are realizing that. GM is starting to make and will make some really good products, so an American auto industry is still very much viable. I am sick of relying on foreigners for all of my cheap $#!t, so I will buy American when I can, and can now do so without compromises. GM is second in world sales now, but that may be a really good thing for them. It puts the target on Toyota's back, while letting GM focus on quality not quantity of products. I've ranted for long enough, so I'll shut up now.

british_rover

The money goes to the stock holders of a public country and they are all over the world.

94accord_lover

I'm with you all the way. My father assembles Kenworth tractor trailers here in Chillicothe, Ohio for $26.67 an hour. One of the best-paying factory jobs around. Let's get rid of it! Hell Yeah, dump it all, send it to China. Let the Japanese engineer it, since they're so DAMN SUPERIOR to anything American, and the Chinese can build them for about $2.00 an hour. Look at the savings there! Yes, it would eliminate my dad's job, along with another 1,200 jobs in an already job-hungry area of Ohio, but it would mean we could get our [non-permissible content removed] for cheap! And we all know that's all Americans care about, right?!! It P!$$*$ me off SO BAD to hear people complain about prices and how much cheaper foreign made products are. What the heck happened to patriotism?!! What happened to national pride?!! They were replaced, by the almighty dollar. You're right, Stuckinohio, things would be cheaper for us if it were all foreign, but it would screw out a ton of Americans of jobs. Here in Chillicothe, we have a paper plant that employs 1/5 of the county. They are now having to compete with a paper plant in China with a machine that can produce 3 TIMES as much paper in a day than they can. Where does that leave Chillicothe in the price advantage? They have none now, thanks to our desire to become one world, which is the worst idea ever!! I had a relative that worked at an RCA plant in Circleville that was shut down but not demolished, but disassembled and reassembled in INDIA!! To make the SAME DAMN THING they made in Circleville! Why? Because it's cheaper in India. I want all industry back in the States, and goodbye cheap foreign $#!t!! It may be more expensive, but it would be worth it to bring back AMERICAN INDUSTRY!! GO USA!!

94accord_lover

Honestly, where are the majority of investors in an auto company? In the country where corporate headquarters are. Where does the money come from to pay for employees, supplies, and other company costs? From sales, right?!! Where do sales come from? AMERICA! What do Americans seem to buy more? Foreign cars, right? Where does the money go to? Not just shareholders, but to corporate headquarters right? Where is corporate heaquarters for foreign automakers?!! NOT IN AMERICA!! Where is corporate headquarters for AMERICAN automakers? IN AMERICA!!! The money from American car companies gets invested back into our own country first. Where does it go? To employees! Where are the employees? IN AMERICA!! I believe in self-sustainability, that's why I buy AMERICAN!

bpizzuti

See, that all depends on what you think is the better destination for your money. Some prefer it to go to an American company because it's American. That means the profit stays in America but as you mentioned, it doesn't necessarily go toward creating American jobs. Me, I want my money to go toward creating American jobs, so I'll try to buy a car that was built in an American factory. That way, regardless of where the company's headquarters is based, I know they are providing American communities with jobs. Lately I have trouble trusting the whole "trickle-down" theory.

Think about this: You can send your money to corporate Detroit, which then uses it to build a Mexican factory (or maybe even sinks it into Daewoo), or you can send it to Japan and they send it back to build an American factory. Basically, there's no guarantee either way, the way these companies are set up. But just keeping money in America by itself isn't enough. Companies need to INVEST that money in America as well: it's investment of wealth rather than retention of wealth that builds up economies.

bpizzuti

The money from American car companies gets invested back into our own country first. Where does it go? To employees! Where are the employees? IN AMERICA!!

Think so? Saturns are designed in Europe and South Korea. GMs are built in Canada and Mexico (and South Korea, heh). That's where a significant portion of your money is going. So please rethi9nk your statement.

You make a good point about money going to a corporation's employees. Now keep in mind how many AMERICANS are employed IN AMERICA by foreign automakers, building cars IN AMERICA!! Money goes to them, meaning that that money is being invested INTO AMERICA!! Partially, at least. But you can say that about any car company, whether it's headquartered in Detroit, Seoul, Tokyo, or Bavaria.

94accord_lover

You have a very valid point. It's not enough to have swimming pool of money if you don't spend it. I'm open to new ideas, and I never said I was right in this issue. Investment is more important than retention, but also, you must think about this one, too. Who higher up does buying your car pay? A CEO in Detroit, or a CEO in Seoul (Who is now in jail for embezzlement)? Which engineering and design department are you funding? Detroit or Tokyo or Seoul or wherever else? I look at that too. You (along with myself) need to really analyze what is going on in the industry to find out exactly what is going on. I realize that my grandpa's HHR built in Manchos Arizpe, Mexico did not provide any American jobs as compared to my 94 Accord built closeby (less than 75 mi. from my home) in Marysville, Ohio. I personally know people employed by Honda and am not trying to take anything away from them. I just believe in buying an American product first. Look what Wal-Mart has done for American companies due to their (and our own) demand for cheaper and cheaper products. It doesn't need to happen again!!!

fezo

I'm happy to see that last post. It's a complicated issue.

No one here is trying to export all the jobs or eliminate blue collar America. Far from it.

I have two built in the USA Hondas and have owned a third and owned another that was built in Canada (which is also where my one and only Ford was built; the Chrysler I once owned was built in Mexico).

I think what you are seeing a lot of in this topic is a questioning of whether or not the Big 3 are capable of putting together real American cars or whether the full blown American car company is a remnant of the past.

I'm still open on the subject.

Oh, and you'll find no greater distaste for the Wal Marting of America than me. As we actually had a Wal Mart when Sam Walton was still around I can tell you he wouldn't like what's happening now either. Back then (and this is only maybe 10 years ago) a Wal Mart was full of American goods.