I keep hearing that American doesn't need 3 car companies, but...

Then why is it ok that Germany has 3, Japan has 7, and little Korea has 2.

3 Brands at Ford and Chrysler is bad but 33 import brands is Okay?

Because people want to be able to buy their Toyotas and Hondas and not feel guilty about putting Americans out of work...because, well, someone else can buy Fords and Jeeps and such.

If there's fewer American brands, and enough flag wavers like me, then people like me can in theory keep a couple companies in business. This country seriously makes me depressed sometimes.

Because people want to be able to buy their Toyotas and Hondas and not feel guilty about putting Americans out of work...because, well, someone else can buy Fords and Jeeps and such.

If there's fewer American brands, and enough flag wavers like me, then people like me can in theory keep a couple companies in business. This country seriously makes me depressed sometimes.

:yes:

CNN had a poll recently and as of my vote 40% said that American car companies aren't capable of building a car they'd want. Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid. :no:

:yes:

CNN had a poll recently and as of my vote 40% said that American car companies aren't capable of building a car they'd want. Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid. :no:

American car companies as a whole haven't been building cars that Americans want. No Kool-Aid involved.

The only rear drive sports coupe we've had till just recently was just the Mustang. The only traditional American sedan over the past 15 years that was brought up to date was the Chrysler LX. It wasn't till the latest Malibu came out that there was an American car that was actually was better than Toyota and Honda in design, materials, and quality.

The new Camaro is the 1st American coupe made that's clearly better than most any coupe imported. The current CTS is clearly better than anything from Lexus and Infiniti, tops Audi, and very much on par with BMW. Chrysler's the 1st US company where you can say 25mpg, full size sedan, and 375 horsepower V8 while refering to the same car.


The results of that poll show that 40% of the public don't feel US automakers make what they want, which means that 60% DO!

If you had taken that poll back some years ago, no doubt those numbers would have been at the very least, reversed.

I have no problems with those numbers, and I can easily see them. US makers have come a long way in the past 4 years. Those numbers will improve within the next 2. Ford is going to be a much different company by then.... and GM is going to be better.

If any of the Big Three fail, they are going to take many parts suppliers with them- many smaller manufacturers of starters, wiper motors, glass, carpeting, etc. will fold also, making it even harder for the remaining car companies to continue-

I feel like the biggest failure of the big 3 is not putting out a car in the USA that could get 40mpg. They have won the HP war but have lost the MPG war.

Chrysler is the worst, their most fuel efficient car is the 30MPG 1.8 L, Manual, Dodge Caliber :(

Ford and GM are on par or better than the imports but still need that 40mpg green halo car.

CNN had a poll recently and as of my vote 40% said that American car companies aren't capable of building a car they'd want. Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid.

American car companies as a whole haven't been building cars that Americans want. No Kool-Aid involved.

Ding-ding-ding-ding.....we have a winner!

It's very simple. Their problem isn't that they can't build cars that Americans want. Once upon a time, they did exactly that. Maybe one could go farther with that and even say that American auto companies are still building cars/trucks that Americans want, while some foreign manufacturers have been doing a better job building cars/trucks that Americans need. :yes:

If there's fewer American brands, and enough flag wavers like me, then people like me can in theory keep a couple companies in business. This country seriously makes me depressed sometimes.

Does it make you depressed when Chinese buy Buicks? It's capitalism...the public buys what they think is best whether it is or not.

Does it make you depressed when Chinese buy Buicks? It's capitalism...the public buys what they think is best whether it is or not.
America already has more than three car companies here employing tens of thousands directly and many times more than that indirectly.

In any case, America can have as many car companies as it wants so long as they can make a profit without feeding off public largess (especially when that largess has to be funded by borrowing money from communist China).

america can have any many car companies as it wants. There also is no cap on how many brands they can have. They just have to sell product

Then why is it ok that Germany has 3, Japan has 7, and little Korea has 2.

3 Brands at Ford and Chrysler is bad but 33 import brands is Okay?

It could be there are too many brands globaly and the US brands are just the weakest at the moment.

I feel like the biggest failure of the big 3 is not putting out a car in the USA that could get 40mpg. They have won the HP war but have lost the MPG war.

Chrysler is the worst, their most fuel efficient car is the 30MPG 1.8 L, Manual, Dodge Caliber :(

Ford and GM are on par or better than the imports but still need that 40mpg green halo car.
Better for who...based on what criteria?

Do the domestics have some great cars to offer? Sure they do.

Are they, on the whole, "better" than their foreign competition? Probably not.

In any case, no one has won any war (HP or MPG)...the war goes on and today's champions in any particular category don't have to be tomorrow's champions.

American car makers can make as many brands as they want. All I ask is that said car makers provide me with a model that I WANT TO BUY.

I personally feel that for the first time in a LONG TIME, American auto makers ARE making models that I (a) enjoy driving, (b) are reliable, and (c) make me feel proud to drive an American made vehicle.

Americans have been convinced to hate this country, it's people, and it's products, pure and simple!

Because people want to be able to buy their Toyotas and Hondas and not feel guilty about putting Americans out of work...because, well, someone else can buy Fords and Jeeps and such.

If there's fewer American brands, and enough flag wavers like me, then people like me can in theory keep a couple companies in business. This country seriously makes me depressed sometimes.

I have to agree. This is the first step in the taking down of America.....

The results of that poll show that 40% of the public don't feel US automakers make what they want, which means that 60% DO!

If you had taken that poll back some years ago, no doubt those numbers would have been at the very least, reversed.

I have no problems with those numbers, and I can easily see them. US makers have come a long way in the past 4 years. Those numbers will improve within the next 2. Ford is going to be a much different company by then.... and GM is going to be better.

That poll shows that 40% of people don't believe US automakers are even capable of making a car they'd want. Which means 40% of the public won't even CONSIDER a car from the Big 3... while the other 60% think that they're able to do make something they'd want. It surely didn't suggest that 60% already know of a car US automakers make that they'd be interested in, just that they think the companies are capable of making one.

The poll very specifically asked if they were capable. It didn't say "do US automakers currently make a car you'd want".

Americans have been convinced to hate this country, it's people, and it's products, pure and simple!
Pure, homogenized Bovine Scatology.

People that don’t go out and NOT buy something from GM or Ford or Chrysler because they hate America; they buy what’s best for them and their needs and wants.

The real danger for the U.S. and its future is if the measurement of “patriotism” is to be determined based on whether someone buys or not buys something offered by the Detroit Three - God help us us such a shallow, inconsequential measuring stick for patriotism is to be the norm.

Pure, homogenized Bovine Scatology.

People that don’t go out and NOT buy something from GM or Ford or Chrysler because they hate America; they buy what’s best for them and their needs and wants.

The real danger for the U.S. and its future is if the measurement of “patriotism” is to be determined based on whether someone buys or not buys something offered by the Detroit Three - God help us us such a shallow, inconsequential measuring stick for patriotism is to be the norm.

Yeah God help US!! IF we ever have to fight any kind of serious war without an American auto industry!! Which is exactly what our enemies want.

Yeah God help US!! IF we ever have to fight any kind of serious war without an American auto industry!! Which is exactly what our enemies want.
Not surprising; you miss the point entirely. :shrug:

Moving on, we are in a serious war now and likely will be for some time.

In any case, we have a vibrant and, even in the current economy, a healthy American auto industry; it just doesn't happen to have GM, Ford, or Chrysler in the names.

What we have (other than the Big3) is a compromised, subsidized, low-level, assembly biased auto industry which yields far less benefit without a promise of long-term presence. This lesser industry itself is dependent on the continued existence of the Big3 to not only secure its supply chain, but to provide the business case for its continued production here. All of which supports a diminished standard of living and promotes a has been, failure mentality.

Anything else is just a lie told by the likes of the hypocrite Shelby.

Not surprising; you miss the point entirely. :shrug:

Moving on, we are in a serious war now and likely will be for some time.

In any case, we have a vibrant and, even in the current economy, a healthy American auto industry; it just doesn't happen to have GM, Ford, or Chrysler in the names.

Robert, with all due respect, what are these American car companies which are healthy? No Ford, GM, and Chrysler...

Who are vibrant all American winners that are moving steel?

All of the transplant, not actually American, car makers are down in numbers
too... Without regard, transplants are not local business.

My pal who is with Ferrari tells me that their business has, for all purposes, died with the death of leasing. The lease market rules the exotic market.

Nissan has backtracked on their pullout from shows... but they are crying poormouth, Toyoda's Toyota is down, Honda is making downturned cashflow reasons behind their retreat from F1...

I'll grant there is good product to be had. But..."Vibrant" business?

I'm all ears...

My read is that the whole industry is down in double digits..

I'm heading to P.R.I. this week and expect to see worried faces at every turn. I expect to see some clever folks out of business.

Not surprising; you miss the point entirely. :shrug:

Moving on, we are in a serious war now and likely will be for some time.

In any case, we have a vibrant and, even in the current economy, a healthy American auto industry; it just doesn't happen to have GM, Ford, or Chrysler in the names.
No you miss the point! Sorry but from what I've seen, many people in this country don't take this war seriously at all!! And BTW an American auto industry without GM, Ford, or Chrysler....ISN"T an AMERICAN auto industry at all....it's a foreign auto industry in America!!

Better for who...based on what criteria?

Do the domestics have some great cars to offer? Sure they do.

Are they, on the whole, "better" than their foreign competition? Probably not.


EPA, I was talking about MPG

Robert, with all due respect, what are these American car companies which are healthy? No Ford, GM, and Chrysler...

Who are vibrant all American winners that are moving steel?

All of the transplant, not actually American, car makers are down in numbers
too...

My pal who is with Ferrari tells me that their business has, for all purposes, died with the death of leasing.

Nissan has backtracked on their pullout from shows... but they are crying poormouth, Toyoda's Toyota is down, Honda is making down cashflow reasons behind their retreat from F1...

I'll grant there is good product to be had. But..."Vibrant"?

I'm all ears...
I wasn't trying to say that no one else in hurting; everybody is hurting; especially in terms of prior projections and desired sales levels.

The differentiation will be in who is strong enough financially to weather the recession and/or what companies are innovative enough to generate enough sales to at least tread water and stay afloat.

Perhaps "vibran" is too strong a word but there are/will be nameplates who still make a profit this year (albeit small than they would like) - recessions do take their toll and do, generally prey on the week (businesses) which is the way it's supposed to work.

...And BTW an American auto industry without GM, Ford, or Chrysler....ISN"T an AMERICAN auto industry at all....it's a foreign auto industry in America!!
Only to those who refuse to see reality and have a "flat earth" view of the world.

EPA, I was talking about MPG
I see.

Even so, I'm not sure that MPG/EPA estimates are quite as important to most buyers as you seem to be suggesting.

I do agree that it's desirable for a nameplate to have a "green" car it can hold out as an example (since being "green" is all the rage today) but in terms of overall car buying, I think MPG is but one of many factors people take into consideration why buying a car.

It is true, of course, that foreign nameplates, in general, have done a better job in fighting the "green vehicle" war!

Only to those who refuse to see reality and have a "flat earth" view of the world.

You're kidding,right?

All the transplants are amounts to a minor local expense for foreign corporations, one that benefits them in the current climate but perhaps not in a climate without the Big3. That's a far cry from being an American industry.

If the climate shifts to an unfavorable one, they will simply cease production here and all cars sold in the US will be imported.

You're kidding,right?

All the transplants are amounts to a minor local expense for foreign corporations, one that benefits them in the current climate but perhaps not in a climate without the Big3. That's a far cry from being an American industry.

If the climate shifts to an unfavorable one, they will simply cease production here and all cars sold in the US will be imported.
And you base that opinion on what facts?

And no, I"m not kidding.

Minor expense? The major foreign nameplates already build in the U.S. a majority of the vehicles it sells in the U.S.

Assuming the Detroit Three survive, a likely scenario is that they will continue to shift more and more production outside of CONUS to the point that "foreign" nameplates will likely be selling more cars actually built in the U.S. than the "domestic" nameplates.

Then why is it ok that Germany has 3, Japan has 7, and little Korea has 2.

3 Brands at Ford and Chrysler is bad but 33 import brands is Okay?

I think it's safe to say that some of those other companies will be going bye-bye within the next decade as well. Just because reality has not yet hit home doesn't mean that it won't happen. Just how well are Opel and Mercedes doing right now? Honda does great here in the US, but probably wouldn't have survived if it had to live off its Japanese-market domestic sales. Companies like SEAT and Skoda exist (for the moment) because of VW's magical way to proliferate badges onto a handful of platforms. And so on...

The auto industry isn't so special as to afford itself the ability to create a couple dozen competitors that offer roughly the same product. The costs of proliferating so many different brands - the engineering, design, validation, tooling, capitalization, federalization, distribution, and marketing - just isn't supported by the profit margins of the industry.

I mean, come on - how many different DOHC inline-4s and V6s does the world really need? Yeah, sure, when the industry was flush with cash, we could all afford to get emotionally attached to the minor (in the grand scheme of things) differences in different engine architectures. Those days are largely past us, I suspect.

All the transplants are amounts to a minor local expense for foreign corporations, one that benefits them in the current climate but perhaps not in a climate without the Big3. That's a far cry from being an American industry.

I take it that you don't work in the auto industry.

Only to those who refuse to see reality and have a "flat earth" view of the world.

What? You must be joking? I am a realist! I don't think the earth is flat at all! I know it's round. I just don't care as much about what happens outside my little corner of it! My concern is mainly for this country, NOT others! It's very simple, yet you can't see it.

And you base that opinion on what facts?

And no, I"m not kidding.


The fact that the transplants depend upon the same suppliers that the Big3 do, which will immediately fail if the Big 3 are allowed to do so.

And, the fact that the transplants are only here because it offered an avenue by which they could avoid trade barriers they could not as import only, that they have been bribed with tax breaks and subsidies our lawmakers were only too happy to give.

And finally, their own track records indicate quite clearly that whatever is in their own self-interest will supercede other concerns. If the climate is not beneficial to the foreign makers, they will leave.

There is a huge difference between a marriage of convenience (transplants) and a home-grown industry. The "natives" don't have the luxury of being able to take their toys and go home, they are tied to this country in an infinite number of organic ways which do not exist for the transplants.

That poll shows that 40% of people don't believe US automakers are even capable of making a car they'd want. Which means 40% of the public won't even CONSIDER a car from the Big 3... while the other 60% think that they're able to do make something they'd want. It surely didn't suggest that 60% already know of a car US automakers make that they'd be interested in, just that they think the companies are capable of making one.

The poll very specifically asked if they were capable. It didn't say "do US automakers currently make a car you'd want".

No, no, no, no.....wrong, wrong, wrong.

Since everyone loves polls/surveys, here's one I posted in another thread:


http://www.motorauthority.com/american-made-index-ranks-cars-by-us-content.html

....an exerpt:

"Of the respondents to the American-Made Index survey, 27% said they would not consider buying anything but an American-made car, while only one-third as many (9%) were foreign-car only buyers. Most respondents didn't have a fixed allegiance. The stated reasons for buying American-only were a desire to support the local economy and brand loyalty. Foreign-car buyers believe the products to be higher quality than American-made equivalents. Recent results of J.D. Power surveys show that that isn't always the case, however, with Ford matching Toyota and Honda in initial quality."

What? You must be joking? I am a realist! I don't think the earth is flat at all! I know it's round. I just don't care as much about what happens outside my little corner of it!
Somehow I'm not surprised by that statement.


My concern is mainly for this country, NOT others! It's very simple, yet you can't see it.
You're right; overly simplistic and unrealistic views of the world are difficult for me to understand.

What is unrealistic is to expect benefit from the averaging of global standards of living through trade policies that extract value from our own.

Global bankers are the ones who will benefit from that, not nations or citizens.

The fact that the transplants depend upon the same suppliers that the Big3 do, which will immediately fail if the Big 3 are allowed to do so.
What will happen to some, a lot or all of the suppliers if one or more of the Detroit Three go under is purely speculation and includes a lot of “doom and gloom” injected into it in order to encourage public/Government action to “save” Detroit.

As with any recession, some businesses will go out of business. However, the assumption that no one will step in to take up the slack; buy up assets and keep providing parts for the manufacturers that need them is unrealistic at best.


And, the fact that the transplants are only here because it offered an avenue by which they could avoid trade barriers they could not as import only, that they have been bribed with tax breaks and subsidies our lawmakers were only too happy to give.
Somehow, I doubt you have any real insight as to why foreign nameplates chose to build plants in the U.S. as opposed to just import everything. I also suspect it would probably surprise you to know that “foreign” manufactures build vehicles in the U.S. which are then exported to other countries.

You are right insofar as that they are here because it makes business sense for them to be here but to think they will just close up shop after investing tens of billions of dollars here (just for their plants alone) is a wild and unsupportable assumption to make.


And finally, their own track records indicate quite clearly that whatever is in their own self-interest will supercede other concerns. If the climate is not beneficial to the foreign makers, they will leave.
What “track record” are you referring to, specifically?

Yes, businesses do what is in their own best self-interests (hopefully that doesn't come as a surprise to anyone); if they don’t then they don’t stay in business. However, assuming you know that foreign nameplates will simply “leave” is unrealistic at best.

I wasn't trying to say that no one else in hurting; everybody is hurting; especially in terms of prior projections and desired sales levels.

The differentiation will be in who is strong enough financially to weather the recession and/or what companies are innovative enough to generate enough sales to at least tread water and stay afloat.

Perhaps "vibran" is too strong a word but there are/will be nameplates who still make a profit this year (albeit small than they would like) - recessions do take their toll and do, generally prey on the week (businesses) which is the way it's supposed to work.

I fully understand the natural progression of capitalism, thus the winners and losers.

We might agree that there are other factors that skew the purist nature of capitalism. Purist capitalism is the way I believe it should work. It's the skew that shifts my idealism. Any transplant < including GM's position in China > involves some advantage.

You work for an outfit that shows some deference to the high performance enthusiast. Most transplants ignore the segment.

The advantage of the Japanese companies is based firmly in labor cost advantage. The quality differences no longer exist.

I won't go into some "bladder capacity" competition over who's parent government deferred to who and set the playing field where it is.

I became involved in the auto biz based on my passion for cars that generate an emotional response from folks due to performance prowess.

As far as I can see, Toyota has near zero interest in performance enthusiast interest vehicles.

Honda is a company based on engine building. They got confused along the way, IMO.

Whatever the opinion any might hold regarding GM, one can not state with any true basis that GM doesn't have a segment within which has consistantly tried to carry the ball for the enthusiast community.

Such can not be said for the transplants. Of all the Asian based companies Nissan has tried the hardest. Most of the transplanys have given up and surrendered to GM's dominance of the sporty market.

What will happen to some, a lot or all of the suppliers if one or more of the Detroit Three go under is purely speculation and includes a lot of “doom and gloom” injected into it in order to encourage public/Government action to “save” Detroit.

As with any recession, some businesses will go out of business. However, the assumption that no one will step in to take up the slack; buy up assets and keep providing parts for the manufacturers that need them is unrealistic at best.



Somehow, I doubt you have any real insight as to why foreign nameplates chose to build plants in the U.S. as opposed to just import everything. I also suspect it would probably surprise you to know that “foreign” manufactures build vehicles in the U.S. which are then exported to other countries.

You are right insofar as that they are here because it makes business sense for them to be here but to think they will just close up shop after investing tens of billions of dollars here (just for their plants alone) is a wild and unsupportable assumption to make.



What “track record” are you referring to, specifically?

Yes, businesses do what is in their own best self-interests (hopefully that doesn't come as a surprise to anyone); if they don’t then they don’t stay in business. However, assuming you know that foreign nameplates will simply “leave” is unrealistic at best.


And I would posit that your seeming faith in the converse is "unrealistic at best"

"Free enterprise", like any philosophy, is not pragmatic nor realistic when it becomes an inflexible dogma. As it now stands, it is so compromised by myriad details of actuality, that to hold fast to its absolutes in an unprecedented time of upheaval is foolhardy.


To follow your endorsed path would , at minumum, lead to a protracted period of chaos - if not to the total failure of all auto production in the US. The inevititable major disruption of the supply chain would affect all US auto production for a very long time, if not permanently.

I fully understand the natural progression of capitalism, thus the winners and losers.

We might agree that there are other factors that skew the purist nature of capitalism. Purist capitalism is the way I believe it should work. It's the skew that shifts my idealism. Any transplant < including GM's position in China > involves some advantage.

You work for an outfit that shows some deference to the high performance enthusiast. Most transplants ignore the segment.

The advantage of the Japanese companies is based firmly in labor cost advantage. The quality differences no longer exist.

I won't go into some "bladder capacity" competition over who's parent government deferred to who and set the playing field where it is.

I became involved in the auto biz based on my passion for cars that generate an emotional response from folks due to performance prowess.

As far as I can see, Toyota has near zero interest in performance enthusiast interest vehicles.

Honda is a company based on engine building. They got confused along the way, IMO.

Whatever the opinion any might hold regarding GM, one can not state with any true basis that GM doesn't have a segment within which has consistantly tried to carry the ball for the enthusiast community.

Such can not be said for the transplants. Of all the Asian based companies Nissan has tried the hardest. Most of the transplanys have given up and surrendered to GM's dominance of the sporty market.
I’m not sure Toyota, Honda, Mazda, etc have “given up” on the enthusiast side of things…I do think “performance” has somewhat taken a back seat to more mundane vehicles but let’s face it, that’s where the real market (and real income) is.

Very few manufacturers could survive in the “performance” end of the marketplace…nameplates like Ferrari and Lamborghini, etc. survive only because they make so few units and command such high dollars.

I too recognize that GM has been pretty steadfast in building vehicles for the enthusiast (although my leanings were always to Pontiac)…it is GM’s vehicles that “made” me an enthusiast.

I well remember as a young kid (maybe nine or ten) seeing my first Corvette Stingray (brand new with factory lake pipes and baby blue exterior) at a rest stop on the Pennsylvania turnpike (one of those oasis stops with a restaurant where you could sit at a window and watch traffic pass by underneath you)..the Corvette was parked in the parking lot…I never saw the owner but I hope he didn’t mind the drool on his fender!

I also fondly remember my uncle (barely seven years older than me) bringing hope a candy apple red (with white vinyl interior) ’67 GTO with the chrome package and three deuces sitting on top of a 389.

My first car was a brand new ’73 Formula 400 (burnt orange/white vinyl interior) onto which I transplanted the intake manifold from a 389 Tri-Power!

I do wonder, what with “green” being all the rage, what will happen to “performance”; especially if the dimwits in DC start dictating to the Detroit Three what kind of vehicles they should (or must) build.

I’m not sure Toyota, Honda, Mazda, etc have “given up” on the enthusiast side of things…I do think “performance” has somewhat taken a back seat to more mundane vehicles but let’s face it, that’s where the real market (and real income) is.

Very few manufacturers could survive in the “performance” end of the marketplace…nameplates like Ferrari and Lamborghini, etc. survive only because they make so few units and command such high dollars.

I too recognize that GM has been pretty steadfast in building vehicles for the enthusiast (although my leanings were always to Pontiac)…it is GM’s vehicles that “made” me an enthusiast.

I well remember as a young kid (maybe nine or ten) seeing my first Corvette Stingray (brand new with factory lake pipes and baby blue exterior) at a rest stop on the Pennsylvania turnpike (one of those oasis stops with a restaurant where you could sit at a window and watch traffic pass by underneath you)..the Corvette was parked in the parking lot…I never saw the owner but I hope he didn’t mind the drool on his fender!

I also fondly remember my uncle (barely seven years older than me) bringing hope a candy apple red (with white vinyl interior) ’67 GTO with the chrome package and three deuces sitting on top of a 389.

My first car was a brand new ’73 Formula 400 (burnt orange/white vinyl interior) onto which I transplanted the intake manifold from a 389 Tri-Power!

I do wonder, what with “green” being all the rage, what will happen to “performance”; especially if the dimwits in DC start dictating to the Detroit Three what kind of vehicles they should (or must) build.


On this we are in complete agreement.:cool:

I’m not sure Toyota, Honda, Mazda, etc have “given up” on the enthusiast side of things…I do think “performance” has somewhat taken a back seat to more mundane vehicles but let’s face it, that’s where the real market (and real income) is.

Very few manufacturers could survive in the “performance” end of the marketplace…nameplates like Ferrari and Lamborghini, etc. survive only because they make so few units and command such high dollars.

I too recognize that GM has been pretty steadfast in building vehicles for the enthusiast (although my leanings were always to Pontiac)…it is GM’s vehicles that “made” me an enthusiast.

.

Well, you were kind enough to reaffirm what is, essentially, the enthusiast community, and that is is our common ground.

I'm more than a bit aware that this section of the forum is a home for the highly informed and the highly interested folks with a passion for the car business.

The over riding wellspring for enthusias car sites is the enthusiast.

You and I can meet on that common ground.

I know what makes affordable performance cars possible.

Somehow I'm not surprised by that statement.



You're right; overly simplistic and unrealistic views of the world are difficult for me to understand.

Have you been to college, just wondering? How about bringing down this country through the American auto industry doesn't benefit the rest of the world either. What's good for GM is still good for the country, and what's good for this country is also good for the rest of the world! Unfortunately for US all, apparently this is too simplistic a concept for some to grasp, therefore it may seem unrealistic!!

And I would posit that your seeming faith in the converse is "unrealistic at best"

"Free enterprise", like any philosophy, is not pragmatic nor realistic when it becomes an inflexible dogma. As it now stands, it is so compromised by myriad details of actuality, that to hold fast to its absolutes in an unprecedented time of upheaval is foolhardy.


To follow your endorsed path would , at minumum, lead to a protracted period of chaos - if not to the total failure of all auto production in the US. The inevititable major disruption of the supply chain would affect all US auto production for a very long time, if not permanently.
Chaos is often the result of major economic shifts.

There was chaos when society changed from primarily an agrarian society into an industrialized one as there was major disruptions in peoples lives as new technologies came along (such as replacing biological horse power with mechanical horse power or replacing line workers with robots)?

We are in a period where manufacturing strength is playing an ever decreasing role in an economy overall; those who adapt will thrive; those who done will not.

That fact there is chaos and pain when such shifts happen in a free enterprise based economy doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with free enterprise. The free enterprise system is simply the best economic system in existence; it is not without its faults but meddling with it generally makes things worse, not better.

Postponing the chaos/pain is not the same as doing away with it. It’s likely that the chaos and pain WILL come no matter what government tries to do about and probably be much worse than it would have been.

Chaos is often the result of major economic shifts.

There was chaos when society changed from primarily an agrarian society into an industrialized one as there was major disruptions in peoples lives as new technologies came along (such as replacing biological horse power with mechanical horse power or replacing line workers with robots)?

We are in a period where manufacturing strength is playing an ever decreasing role in an economy overall; those who adapt will thrive; those who done will not.

That fact there is chaos and pain when such shifts happen in a free enterprise based economy doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with free enterprise. The free enterprise system is simply the best economic system in existence; it is not without its faults but meddling with it generally makes things worse, not better.

Postponing the chaos/pain is not the same as doing away with it. It’s likely that the chaos and pain WILL come no matter what government tries to do about and probably be much worse than it would have been.


And so we arrive at a point of insoluable disagreement. I do not accept the prevailing wisdom that we can survive effectively by abandoning our manufacturing base. To me, it is yet another example of foolishly putting all of our eggs in a single basket to do so.

As to the chaos and pain, mitigating it makes sense to me. I believe that slowing the process to allow time for crisis-management and transformation of our industrial base is far preferable to sifting through the debris of massive collapse and starting over at ground zero.

As I said, we will not agree on this - our positons are simply too far apart.

In my view, it is time for pragmatism and the conversion of liabilities into assets - rather than a "survival of the fittest" bloodbath and starting from scratch.

Handled properly, this crisis could be a slingshot to the future.

A reasoned review of our supplications at the alter of globalism is desperately needed.

Very well put..CaminoLS6! Needless to say I agree.

And so we arrive at a point of insoluable disagreement. I do not accept the prevailing wisdom that we can survive effectively by abandoning our manufacturing base. To me, it is yet another example of foolishly putting all of our eggs in a single basket to do so.

As to the chaos and pain, mitigating it makes sense to me. I believe that slowing the process to allow time for crisis-management and transformation of our industrial base is far preferable to sifting through the debris of massive collapse and starting over at ground zero.

As I said, we will not agree on this - our positons are simply too far apart.

In my view, it is time for pragmatism and the conversion of liabilities into assets - rather than a "survival of the fittest" bloodbath and starting from scratch.

Handled properly, this crisis could be a slingshot to the future.

A reasoned review of our supplications at the alter of globalism is desperately needed.

At a very young age my father, God rest his soul, offered some of the best advise he ever offered. Granted, I don't believe he knew at the time the gravity on me of his advice. Even so, I have carried it in my heart and head as a precious object which I follow like the north star.

As a preface, my father was a "lifer" in the army of these United States. He was a Colonel.

"Listen to your sargents" was his passing remark. Truly, for me, sage advice.

I took his remark on a number of different levels. All have served me well. The passing years allow some rumination.

I have found myself in a number of management positions over the years. I " listen to my sargents". IOW, a successful endeavor is more possible from the bottom up rather than a from the top down kind of approach.

An ability to "sift" and "seek" the info from folks below is the better path.

In essence, Asian management style is far more handcuffed when compared to western management style. At least that's what I have come away with after study and experience.

Most here on this forum have no clue whatsoever regarding how the transplants or actual homegrown car companies truly operate.

I claim no personal insight beyond my own understanding of P.R. and what the financial realities are in Japan, thus my thoughts are based according to my own opinions. IOW, any expertise is solely based on my own experience and gut. I have worked for GM and not been the worse for it.

What I do have a personal grip on is my own perception of GM. I'm straight up confident on that territory. So let's look at G.M. as I know it.

What I respect about Wagoner is his willingness to supplement his weakness. By that I mean that he is a finance guy... even so, he handed the product side of the biz to a "car guy" like Bob Lutz. In GM history this is unusual. In any car company, the absolute "car guy" having any say is not as common as some may think.

Let me be clear, GM has been run by a money guy or a car guy in the past.... What is different is a willingness from either ruling school to allow a voice to the other school...

Consider an anomoly such as a Bob Lutz...

I think that Bob has delivered on his part of the bargain of his return.

Nonetheless, a guy like Lutz has a voice at GM. However you view him, Rick let him back in.

GM has had some absolute giants in their management programs. Perhaps some folks I will mention will ring a bell.

There's always room for a Zora type at GM.

Ed Cole was a giant, Jimmy Perkins can raise the dead with a speech on Chevrolet. These kinda folk still walk the halls. I could go on and on.

The culture at GM does make room for the passionate. True believers have a podium at GM.

Whatever any here believe, GM is a "car guys" company.

If I didn't believe this to be true, I'd woudn't fight so hard, or follow so hard.

Chaos is often the result of major economic shifts.

There was chaos when society changed from primarily an agrarian society into an industrialized one as there was major disruptions in peoples lives as new technologies came along (such as replacing biological horse power with mechanical horse power or replacing line workers with robots)?

We are in a period where manufacturing strength is playing an ever decreasing role in an economy overall; those who adapt will thrive; those who done will not.

That fact there is chaos and pain when such shifts happen in a free enterprise based economy doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with free enterprise. The free enterprise system is simply the best economic system in existence; it is not without its faults but meddling with it generally makes things worse, not better.

Postponing the chaos/pain is not the same as doing away with it. It’s likely that the chaos and pain WILL come no matter what government tries to do about and probably be much worse than it would have been.

I would not be so quick to abandon manufacturing. It, along with mining and agriculture, are what procide wealth for an economy. Without a strong manufacturing base we will never overcome the trade deficiet. Without overcoming the trade deficiet it is only a matter of time until our country is blead dry.

I would not be so quick to abandon manufacturing. It, along with mining and agriculture, are what procide wealth for an economy. Without a strong manufacturing base we will never overcome the trade deficiet. Without overcoming the trade deficiet it is only a matter of time until our country is blead dry.
Couldn't disagree more - the wealth of a nation does not lie in its manufacturing base or its raw materials or any other tangible asset; a nation's wealth lies in its people - people and their personal strengths, intelligence, drive and ability to innovate are the only things that can sustain the U.S.; it will never be any one industry or any one genre of industry.

And no one is suggesting "abandoning" manufacturing - having less manufacturing or having very specialized manufacturing in areas when the U.S. can be competitive doe not mean we have to abandon manufacturing; I'm not sure where this "black or white"/"all or nothing" mentality comes from. :shrug:

Couldn't disagree more - the wealth of a nation does not lie in its manufacturing base or its raw materials or any other tangible asset; a nation's wealth lies in its people - people and their personal strengths, intelligence, drive and ability to innovate are the only things that can sustain the U.S.; it will never be any one industry or any one genre of industry.

And no one is suggesting "abandoning" manufacturing - having less manufacturing or having very specialized manufacturing in areas when the U.S. can be competitive doe not mean we have to abandon manufacturing; I'm not sure where this "black or white"/"all or nothing" mentality comes from. :shrug:

The trade deficit for 2008 upto the second I type this is $662,540,893,070.03, how are you going to over come that without tangible goods? Keep in mind China does not give a damn about intellectual property.

Couldn't disagree more - the wealth of a nation does not lie in its manufacturing base or its raw materials or any other tangible asset; a nation's wealth lies in its people - people and their personal strengths, intelligence, drive and ability to innovate are the only things that can sustain the U.S.; it will never be any one industry or any one genre of industry.

It may not lie soley in a manufacturing base or raw materials, but those are undeniable aspects of wealth for any nation. And some of those people you are depending on derive their ability to innovate from the support those very aspects of wealth provide.

Andno one is suggesting "abandoning" manufacturing - having less manufacturing or having very specialized manufacturing in areas when the U.S. can be competitive doe not mean we have to abandon manufacturing; I'm not sure where this "black or white"/"all or nothing" mentality comes from. :shrug:

Perhaps from the overt neglect in recent decades of the manufacturing sector?

We need all of our resources to remain a viable economic power.

The trade deficit for 2008 upto the second I type this is $662,540,893,070.03, how are you going to over come that without tangible goods? Keep in mind China does not give a damn about intellectual property.
You still seem to be approaching this as if it's all or nothing as far as manufacturing goes...having less manufacturing or different manufacturing doesn't mean we have none; same applies to natural resources.

Moving on, I’m sure you think a trade deficit is “bad” but why, exactly do you think that?

Numbers like the "trade deficit" is the kind of thing the news media throw out there because the issue is too complex to be dealt with in a 90 second news spot.

Considering that fact that the U.S. has had a trade deficit for most of its history; most economists don’t see the deficit as having much meaning one way or the other; many if not not most will say that economies are far too complex to draw simplistic conclusions about trade deficits and surpluses.

I also suspect too that the number you cite has been driven much higher this year purely as a result of the crude oil price boom and that if you excluded oil’s impact, the figure would be a lot smaller.

While I would say that most people would like to see a balance in trade, having a deficit or a surplus is not material to the overall health of an economy and certainly not a measure the worth of a nation.

Again, a nation’s people and how that nation governs itself is far more important to its economic health than its natural resources or how large its manufacturing base.

Moving on, I’m sure you think a trade deficit is “bad” but why, exactly do you think that?

trade deficit = wealth leaving your country
trade surplus = wealth coming into your country

We get away with it because the dollar is the worlds reserve currency. That will most likely end in the next 10 years or less as the rest of the world realizes that we are taking tangible goods from them in exchange for worthless paper. Once they stop taking that paper the dollar will collapse.

trade deficit = wealth leaving your country
trade surplus = wealth coming into your country

We get away with it because the dollar is the worlds reserve currency. That will most likely end in the next 10 years or less as the rest of the world realizes that we are taking tangible goods from them in exchange for worthless paper. Once they stop taking that paper the dollar will collapse.
Were it actually that simple (and it's not) then the U.S. would have become a third-rate economy 100 years ago...as I mentioned before, the U.S. has had a trade deficit for most of its history; claiming now the the sky is falling because of the trade deficit is grossly oversimplistic.

Were it actually that simple (and it's not) then the U.S. would have become a third-rate economy 100 years ago...as I mentioned before, the U.S. has had a trade deficit for most of its history; claiming now the the sky is falling because of the trade deficit is grossly oversimplistic.

Where do you get your data from?

Also by your logic Zimbabwe should be the richest nation in the world if all it takes is printing money at trading it for foreign goods.

Where do you get your data from?

Also by your logic Zimbabwe should be the richest nation in the world if all it takes is printing money at trading it for foreign goods.

Well...I would direct you to the National Bureau of Economic Research or; if raw stats are more your thing, try the U.S. Bureau or Economic Analysis or try the writings of folks like Milton Friedman or Walter Williams or Don Boudreaux.

Boudreaux said...Professor Don Boudreaux, chairman of George Mason University's Economics Department, wrote "If Trade Surpluses Are So Great, the 1930s Should Have Been a Booming Decade" (www.cafehayek.com). According to data he found at the National Bureau of Economic Research's "Macrohistory Database", it turns out that the U.S. ran a trade surplus in nine of the 10 years of the Great Depression, with 1936 being the lone exception.

I'm not suggesting that huge trade deficits are "good" but neither do they warrant a sky is falling mentality as some seem to be caught up in.

By the way; no one was talking about printing money nor does running either a trade deficit or a surplus cause or stop the presses. In any case, you tell me which is "better"; printing money or borrowing it from Communist China (since that is the only two sources for any bailout money for Detroit).

I would direct you to the writings of folks like Milton Friedman or Walter Williams or Don Boudreaux.

Boudreaux said...

Spend some time on the website of the NBER or if raw stats are more your thing, try the U.S. Bureau or Economic Analysis.

I'm not suggesting that huge trade deficits are "good" but neither do they warrant a sky is falling mentality as some seem to be caught up in.

By the way; nice attempt to change the subject...no one was talking about printing money. In any case, you tell me which is "better"; printing money or borrowing it from Communist China (since that is the only two sources for any bailout money for Detroit).

So what, in the depression we couldn't afford imports. We also made money selling arms to Europe.

I didn't change the subject, that is how we pay for our trade deficit, they give use good, oil or raw materials and we give the rest of the world our paper money and debt.

So what, in the depression we couldn't afford imports. We also made money selling arms to Europe.

I didn't change the subject, that is how we pay for our trade deficit, they give use good, oil or raw materials and we give the rest of the world our paper money and debt.
In other words, sources aren't important to you after all which makes me wonder why you bothered to ask for them.

Since you are against debt and printing money (as am I) then I also assume you are opposed to any bailouts (including bailouts for Detroit), correct?

In other words, sources aren't important to you after all which makes me wonder why you bothered to ask for them.


I'm still waiting for your data, I can only find trade balance data that goes back to 1975


Since you are against debt and printing money (as am I) then I also assume you are opposed to any bailouts (including bailouts for Detroit), correct?

The playing field needs to be leveled, I'd rather see a $5000 tariff on every imported car from outside North America.

Big 3 are a mess and need to be restructured, I wish I knew what the best way was. They will need some loans to pay for that restructuring, American laws make it easier for a company to grow than contract. America needs the heavy manufacturing infrastructure, it would be foolish to throw it away.

you don't level playing fields with the government and tariffs. You don't mess with them period.

protectionism makes everything worse and played a major roll in why the Big three are in this mess.

you don't level playing fields with the government and tariffs. You don't mess with them period.

protectionism makes everything worse and played a major roll in why the Big three are in this mess.

I agree in theory , but..

How does the non subsidized compete with the subsidized? Japans protective tariffs have done a pretty good job of keeping US products out and allowing them to support different 7 automakers.

i think you ignore the japanese market. GM is profitable in all foreign countries except here.

A focus solely on product is how the competition is fought. Tariffs in theory should prevent imports or at the least cause them to be higher priced and less desirable.

The foreign automakers laughed at the tariff and worked around it out smarting everything we had. Fool us once, shame on us, fool us twice.....

The big three can be competitive on product alone and they need to do it here first. Penetration into other protective foreign markets can be a future goal they can pursue once healthy for the fight.

I'm still waiting for your data, I can only find trade balance data that goes back to 1975
I don't have time to do it for you - the data is there; I just suggested two sources; there are many more.


The playing field needs to be leveled, I'd rather see a $5000 tariff on every imported car from outside North America.

Big 3 are a mess and need to be restructured, I wish I knew what the best way was. They will need some loans to pay for that restructuring, American laws make it easier for a company to grow than contract. America needs the heavy manufacturing infrastructure, it would be foolish to throw it away.
It's hard to keep up with your argument when you keep changing it; now I guess we've gone from printing money to leveling the playing field and tariffs.

Tariffs are THE reason the transplant facilities are in the U.S. in the first place...do you really think more of the same is going to give a different result?

People didn't stop buying Detroit products overnight; Detroit lost its market because Detroit chose not to compete - there isn't a single thing wrong with Detroit that Detroit couldn't have fixed on its own (supposed subsidies of foreign brands notwithstanding) and there is no reason why Detroit can't go toe to tow with ANY other manufacturer (even subsidized ones) and win the battle for customers other than its own lack of will.

...The big three can be competitive on product alone and they need to do it here first. Penetration into other protective foreign markets can be a future goal they can pursue once healthy for the fight.
You know; that is an excellent point...if the Detroit Three had truly competed here, in their "home" market; there is no reason why they couldn't be so profitable here that they wouldn't need a foreign market presence at all or at least could pursue foreign markets from a position of strength.

I don't have time to do it for you - the data is there; I just suggested two sources; there are many more.


I had a feeling you just made the information up and don't have a source. I also don't have the data, but it is my understanding that from about 1850 - 1975 the USA ran mostly trade surpluses. We made a lot of money selling great products and natural resources to other nations. Back in the 1930's the US was the Saudi Arabia of the oil industry. We used to be the worlds largest oil exporter.

I had a feeling you just made the information up and don't have a source. I also don't have the data, but it is my understanding that from about 1850 - 1975 the USA ran mostly trade surpluses. We made a lot of money selling great products and natural resources to other nations. Back in the 1930's the US was the Saudi Arabia of the oil industry. We used to be the worlds largest oil exporter.
I prefer to give fishing poles to people; not do the fishing for them.

It's probably just as well you not waste your time researching as I doubt you would change your mind regardless of what data you found.

Here is some data that goes back to 1960. Looks like we did have a trade surplus for all of the 60's and a couple years in the 70's. From then on it just gets ugly.

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/historical/gands.pdf

I don't have time to do it for you - the data is there; I just suggested two sources; there are many more.



I prefer to give fishing poles to people; not do the fishing for them.

It's probably just as well you not waste your time researching as I doubt you would change your mind regardless of what data you found.


An interesting response from someone whose favorite lines are"What's your source?" and "Where's the proof?" (paraphrasing because, well, I don't have time to look up your exact quotes. ) :blah:

An interesting response from someone whose favorite lines are"What's your source?" and "Where's the proof?" (paraphrasing because, well, I don't have time to look up your exact quotes. ) :blah:
Unlike the responses I typically get after asking that type of question; I provided several sources for the data.

Not everything can be reduced to a single web link nor can an adult lifetime of living this kind of data be reduced to a paragraph in an internet board.

Unlike the responses I typically get after asking that type of question; I provided several sources for the data.

Not everything can be reduced to a single web link nor can an adult lifetime of living this kind of data be reduced to a paragraph in an internet board.

And yet.... you try to do this very thing, just with a different viewpoint. :think:

And yet.... you try to do this very thing, just with a different viewpoint. :think:
Try to do what "very thing"?

Do you have a real point to make here or do you just want to argue?

Try to do what "very thing"?

Not everything can be reduced to a single web link nor can an adult lifetime of living this kind of data be reduced to a paragraph in an internet board.

Do you have a real point to make here or do you just want to argue?


Hello, Pot? This is the Kettle... :death:

Not everything can be reduced to a single web link nor can an adult lifetime of living this kind of data be reduced to a paragraph in an internet board.
I guess it takes a mind like yours to equate providing no data of any kind (which is the usual results to my queries for sources) with my providing two separate links and three suggested authors when the question was posed to me in this thread. :shrug:

Since you decided to jump into the thread; I'm sure you have a great handle on the topic that was being discussed...perhaps you would care to elaborate on the meaning and importance of the U.S. balance of trade and the consequences and benefits of carrying a surplus and/or a deficit?

Trade deficits can be maintained if one's country creates enough wealth to increase both its own prosperity and that of the rest of the world in an amount sufficiently greater than the deficit.

Anyone who would argue that we're in a position to do so today has probably been sleeping since the 60s.

People far smarter than I (or you, Eric…no offense) would state that there is nothing neither inherently “good” with a trade surplus nor inherently “bad” about running a trade deficit.

Those same people will also cite that even with many decades of trade deficits, the U.S. economy was creating jobs and still THE economy the rest of the world wanted to and did invest in…unfortunately, the ridiculous housing bubble, which fueled a lot of the recent economic boom we were enjoying, finally burst (as it was always destined to do).

But even taking the downturn of the past 8-12 months into consideration, and going back to the original post about the current trade deficit, I suggested earlier in the thread, and it’s never been challenged, that much of this year’s deficit is due to the record high crude oil prices…take that away and I would suggest that the number would not look so frightening.