Do you think a rise of protectionism would be good for GM and the US economy.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
Re: Do you think a rise of protectionism would be good for GM and the US economy.
Originally Posted by 1fastdog
Good question. However, the service base economy is on the way out here as well. "Knowledge based" is the next thing we are supposedly going to thrive on...
As for "knowledge" and technology... China is supporting development of their own technology base by offering $1.50 in return for every $1.00 spent on R&D for approved projects that will strengthen their economy, infrastructure, and/or technological base domestically and help them become less dependent on foreign technology. A company in China can actually MAKE a 50% RETURN on R&D work in that country... You guys put THAT in your pipe and smoke on it for a while...
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,808
From: FL/MI
Re: Do you think a rise of protectionism would be good for GM and the US economy.
Originally Posted by ProudPony
Are you refering to the IT jobs in India, or the R&D jobs in China, or the accounting jobs in Malaysia, or the... ummm... Nevermind.
As for "knowledge" and technology... China is supporting development of their own technology base by offering $1.50 in return for every $1.00 spent on R&D for approved projects that will strengthen their economy, infrastructure, and/or technological base domestically and help them become less dependent on foreign technology. A company in China can actually MAKE a 50% RETURN on R&D work in that country... You guys put THAT in your pipe and smoke on it for a while...
As for "knowledge" and technology... China is supporting development of their own technology base by offering $1.50 in return for every $1.00 spent on R&D for approved projects that will strengthen their economy, infrastructure, and/or technological base domestically and help them become less dependent on foreign technology. A company in China can actually MAKE a 50% RETURN on R&D work in that country... You guys put THAT in your pipe and smoke on it for a while...
Yeah..knowledge based economy... seems many money making ideas were born here...just not exploited.
Intellectual property rights... has China changed their attitude toward respecting copyrights?
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
Re: Do you think a rise of protectionism would be good for GM and the US economy.
Originally Posted by johnsocal
As difficult things might be for some people economically right now here in the US (people are still doing pretty good right now as well) I think our economy would be in severely worse shape right now (look at France as an example) if it wasn't for globalized manufacturing and competition, foreign investment into our country, and the fact foriegn countries are buying our bonds and inadvertantly keeping long term interest rates lower then they otherwise would in the process.
The people here in the US are NOT doing "pretty well".
We are not saving any money for tomorrow.
We are spending money we don't have to spend (personally and governmentally).
We are swimming in debt in every direction.
Our earning power is going down.
Our jobs are going offshore.
Our manufacturing might is disappearing.
Our largest companies are struggling.
And here's a dose of reality regarding foreign investors in our country...
Senior China official urges cut in US debt holding.
"As China is a leading financier of the U.S. current account deficit and holds the world's largest foreign exchange reserves, the comments from Cheng Siwei, a vice chief of the national parliament, sent the dollar and U.S. government bonds lower."
That means that you and I are LOSING GROUND when it comes to our investments in the US economy and they are wavering an unprecedented control over it. Yes, THEY are controlling OUR economy to a large degree now.
"Analysts say China has been gradually diversifying away from dollar assets in its foreign exchange reserves but fears of a collapse in the U.S. currency will prevent it from making any dramatic shift. "
"China held $262.6 billion of U.S. Treasuries as of January, dwarfed by Japan's holding of $668.3 billion, according to U.S. Treasury data. "
If these statements don't shock and anger many of you... I'll be hugely disappointed.
You folks DO KNOW that our burgeoning trade deficit, along with our national debt, is financed by these offshore banks and governments, don't you?
You DO REALIZE they can cash-in on their "mortgages" and possess a huge amount of the US' assets and real properties, don't you?
It should trouble you to know that the sovereignty of your wonderful homeland is being managed and controlled now by foreign countries.
Explain this "protectionism" thing to me again...
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 662
From: albany, ny
Re: Do you think a rise of protectionism would be good for GM and the US economy.
you all go protectionism is bad. but i mean free market ( i think thats the term been a while lol) doesnt seem to work either i rember my professor saying that mabe a mix is the best possible solution. like protect big industrys like aircraft, car and stuff like that with mabe like a tariff and not stuff like tvs dvds toys and stuff like that . tech jobs will be exported in importated the majority of service jobs have to stay in the country no one is gona fly to indea to go to walmart and no one from pakistan is gona fly in to plum your house or do your electrical. you all go protectionism doesnt work but to me neither system apears to work
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,000
From: TX Med Ctr
Re: Do you think a rise of protectionism would be good for GM and the US economy.
Tarriffs are always too obvious. The other civilized countries just heavily subsidize the big industries.
Of course, having a culture that almost always buys their own national goods doesn't hurt either.
Of course, having a culture that almost always buys their own national goods doesn't hurt either.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 1998
Posts: 4,320
From: Memphis
Re: Do you think a rise of protectionism would be good for GM and the US economy.
Johnsocal, you say you'd walk before you'd ride in an Asian vehicle, but yet you own a german-made/owned vehicle... how does that work?
Buying the german-made vehicle typically has the same relative impact on the domestic economy as buying an Asian-made vehicle, so what's different? Because Germans are white? Because more people in the US are of German or European blood lines than Japanese/Asian bloodlines? That is almost racist when you get down to it - either way it's sending dollars out of the country - as to the ethnicity of the people receiving it I can't see how that matters unless maybe it was a DC vehicle made in Germany like a Mercedes, but still, there are FAR more Asian-branded vehicles for sale in the US at the moment that were built in the US with a majority of US parts than there are German branded vehicles doing the same. Last I heard the number of BMW, Mercedes, Audi, and VW models that are for sale in the US that were actually made in the US with majority US parts could be counted on 1 hand... maybe 2 - exception being if you count Mexico by saying "North America" but to me, I don't consider being Mexican built much if any better for the domestic economy than being German built.
With that said, yes I drive an Audi made in Germany and a 4-runner made in Japan, but I don't hold your same opinion in the first place; I'm simply playing the devil's advocate and trying to discover why you feel it's OK to buy a german-made german-owned vehicle but not a potentially US-made japanese-owned vehicle.
Buying the german-made vehicle typically has the same relative impact on the domestic economy as buying an Asian-made vehicle, so what's different? Because Germans are white? Because more people in the US are of German or European blood lines than Japanese/Asian bloodlines? That is almost racist when you get down to it - either way it's sending dollars out of the country - as to the ethnicity of the people receiving it I can't see how that matters unless maybe it was a DC vehicle made in Germany like a Mercedes, but still, there are FAR more Asian-branded vehicles for sale in the US at the moment that were built in the US with a majority of US parts than there are German branded vehicles doing the same. Last I heard the number of BMW, Mercedes, Audi, and VW models that are for sale in the US that were actually made in the US with majority US parts could be counted on 1 hand... maybe 2 - exception being if you count Mexico by saying "North America" but to me, I don't consider being Mexican built much if any better for the domestic economy than being German built.
With that said, yes I drive an Audi made in Germany and a 4-runner made in Japan, but I don't hold your same opinion in the first place; I'm simply playing the devil's advocate and trying to discover why you feel it's OK to buy a german-made german-owned vehicle but not a potentially US-made japanese-owned vehicle.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 1,911
From: Southern California (SoCal)
Re: Do you think a rise of protectionism would be good for GM and the US economy.
Not so fast there cowboy!!!
The people here in the US are NOT doing "pretty well".
We are not saving any money for tomorrow.
We are spending money we don't have to spend (personally and governmentally).
We are swimming in debt in every direction.
Our earning power is going down.
Our jobs are going offshore.
Our manufacturing might is disappearing.
Our largest companies are struggling.
The people here in the US are NOT doing "pretty well".
We are not saving any money for tomorrow.
We are spending money we don't have to spend (personally and governmentally).
We are swimming in debt in every direction.
Our earning power is going down.
Our jobs are going offshore.
Our manufacturing might is disappearing.
Our largest companies are struggling.
If these statements don't shock and anger many of you... I'll be hugely disappointed.
You folks DO KNOW that our burgeoning trade deficit, along with our national debt, is financed by these offshore banks and governments, don't you?
You DO REALIZE they can cash-in on their "mortgages" and possess a huge amount of the US' assets and real properties, don't you?
It should trouble you to know that the sovereignty of your wonderful homeland is being managed and controlled now by foreign countries.
You folks DO KNOW that our burgeoning trade deficit, along with our national debt, is financed by these offshore banks and governments, don't you?
You DO REALIZE they can cash-in on their "mortgages" and possess a huge amount of the US' assets and real properties, don't you?
It should trouble you to know that the sovereignty of your wonderful homeland is being managed and controlled now by foreign countries.
Explain this "protectionism" thing to me again...
Let me explain this as simply as I can. The Fed has been raising the Fed-Funds rate for the last two years in their attempt to raise interest rates and try to keep inflation in check and slowly cool down the housing market and bring interests rates closer to historical norms. The conundrum that the Fed now faces is that even while they have been raising short-term interest rates they have not been able to significantly increase long term interest rates as high as they would have liked. This has caused a near-inverted yield curve, which has a lot of economists concerned since an inverted yield curve is often a precursor for a recession.
The positive side to all this is the fact that foreign countries are investing/ buying our bonds and that’s inadvertently keeping long term interest rates lower then the otherwise would be. This has significantly help the average consumer to consolidate debt to lower monthly payments and has also significantly helped US business’s cash reserves. Currently US corps are sitting on the largest cash reserves in their history and historically when US corps have so much money in the bank it a very good thing for the long-term health of our economy as long as that money get reinvested properly.
I know first hand globalization is far from perfect , but to think that there only negative consequences to the “globalization’ equation is naïve.
Before you get too overzealous don’t forget that since you think globalization is so bad you must be the equivalent to a guy who builds Crystal-Meth Labs for a living but tells his kids not to do drugs
Last edited by johnsocal; Apr 4, 2006 at 01:32 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
Re: Do you think a rise of protectionism would be good for GM and the US economy.
Originally Posted by johnsocal
As bad as you think we as a whole are doing here, I think we are doing a lot better then most in other countires. While China has only 4% unemployment in urban areas in rural areas (most of China) unemployment is closer to 20%.
In addition, there are REAMS of data available that show that the American worker is losing ground economically. We are losing buying power, earning power, our standard of living is going DOWN - not up, our infrastructure is failing (just look at the sh1++y roads across our nation to see that real quick, not to mention our mass-transit systems are embarrassingly antiquated - even the new ones - compared to what Europe and Asia have), we are going into debt at alarming rates, and we have a poverty level that is GROWING, not shrinking - which infuriates me since we are supposed to be the global example of economics and leadership. I will argue with you til pigs fly that while we are still ahead of many 3rd world countries, we are backing up, not moving ahead.
Originally Posted by johnsocal
Those statements don’t shock me because I have already read similar ones in the past. On the other hand their economy is very closely linked to ours and if we go down we will certainly bring them down with us. So dont get too caught up in the saber-rattling propaganda and over look whats really going on under the rader.
And as far as what's going on under the radar, THAT'S EXACTLY WHERE WE NEED TO BE LOOKING. If things were all out in the open, and the American consumer knew just how bad off we really are behind the scenes, we'd be in a state of chaos. I am a detail person - it's my job, and I'm good at it - that's why I do what I do and apparently my company thinks I'm good at it too. Engineer's deal with facts and detail, we're trained for it.
I'm trying to explain to you what I see, hear, and know, and how I think it will affect our nation. You have every right to rebut, argue, and disagree, but I am not going to lay aside and ignore what I think is pending economic doom for us. I don't like to be an "also-ran" when I compete. There are thos e who win, and there are the rest. I don't want to be one of "the rest".
So these are not problems for "someone else" to tend to - these are my problems as much as anyone else's.
Originally Posted by johnsocal
You seem to be focusing on one side of the equation.
Let me explain this as simply as I can. The Fed has been raising the Fed-Funds rate for the last two years in their attempt to raise interest rates and try to keep inflation in check and slowly cool down the housing market and bring interests rates closer to historical norms. The conundrum that the Fed now faces is that even while they have been raising short-term interest rates they have not been able to significantly increase long term interest rates as high as they would have liked. This has caused a near-inverted yield curve, which has a lot of economists concerned since an inverted yield curve is often a precursor for a recession.
The positive side to all this is the fact that foreign countries are investing/ buying our bonds and that’s inadvertently keeping long term interest rates lower then the otherwise would be. This has significantly help the average consumer to consolidate debt to lower monthly payments and has also significantly helped US business’s cash reserves. Currently US corps are sitting on the largest cash reserves in their history and historically when US corps have so much money in the bank it a very good thing for the long-term health of our economy as long as that money get reinvested properly.
I know first hand globalization is far from perfect , but to think that there only negative consequences to the “globalization’ equation is naïve.
Let me explain this as simply as I can. The Fed has been raising the Fed-Funds rate for the last two years in their attempt to raise interest rates and try to keep inflation in check and slowly cool down the housing market and bring interests rates closer to historical norms. The conundrum that the Fed now faces is that even while they have been raising short-term interest rates they have not been able to significantly increase long term interest rates as high as they would have liked. This has caused a near-inverted yield curve, which has a lot of economists concerned since an inverted yield curve is often a precursor for a recession.
The positive side to all this is the fact that foreign countries are investing/ buying our bonds and that’s inadvertently keeping long term interest rates lower then the otherwise would be. This has significantly help the average consumer to consolidate debt to lower monthly payments and has also significantly helped US business’s cash reserves. Currently US corps are sitting on the largest cash reserves in their history and historically when US corps have so much money in the bank it a very good thing for the long-term health of our economy as long as that money get reinvested properly.
I know first hand globalization is far from perfect , but to think that there only negative consequences to the “globalization’ equation is naïve.
One last thing - all of the corporations that have this big pile of cash... where is it? The oil companies? Banks? Gas companies? It sure isn't GM or Ford!!! or Delphi, or Visteon. or trucking companies. or textile companies. And even if they do have a pile of cash, they are doling it out to their wealthy execs or investing it in offshore operations to grab greedily at even more cash. As opposed to investing in local communities, technology, new products, and training - things that will keep us moving ahead, into the future.
Originally Posted by johnsocal
Before you get too overzealous don’t forget that since you think globalization is so bad you must be the equivalent to a guy who builds Crystal-Meth Labs for a living but tells his kids not to do drugs
I explained my position and what my job entails earlier - apparently you did not read or understand it.
Shame on you... not me.
I have been on the record many times in different threads about globalization... I am against it 100%. It nourishes greed, and exploits the world's poorest people and their land for the further enrichment of the wealthy.
I am all for trading with foreign countries - 100% for it... BUT, those countries must obey the same cannons of ethical behavior, environmental preservation, human rights, legislative accountability, and basic human compassion that our nation subscribes to, or they can kiss my @ss... I don't want them, or need them. We should NOT be trading with countries that dump toxic waste, rape the environment, lie to you about their trade policy, use monoploistic methods to eliminate competition, and legislate and condone unethical treatment of their people. To trade and invest in such countries is foolish - I don't give a rat's @ss who justifies it under whatever term they want to call it.
Thanks for the thoughts though.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 1,911
From: Southern California (SoCal)
Re: Do you think a rise of protectionism would be good for GM and the US economy.
Did you not just see the article I linked to earlier?!?! China is DIVESTING from US commodities, not investing more! And personally, I don't like the thought of selling my national treasury to foreign countries and foreign banks so that financial putz's here in America can go into hock to buy a house that they can't afford, and cars that they can't afford.
One last thing - all of the corporations that have this big pile of cash... where is it? The oil companies? Banks? Gas companies? It sure isn't GM or Ford!!! or Delphi, or Visteon. or trucking companies . And even if they do have a pile of cash, they are doling it out to their wealthy execs or investing it in offshore operations to grab greedily at even more cash. As opposed to investing in local communities, technology, new products, and training - things that will keep us moving ahead, into the future
One last thing - all of the corporations that have this big pile of cash... where is it? The oil companies? Banks? Gas companies? It sure isn't GM or Ford!!! or Delphi, or Visteon. or trucking companies . And even if they do have a pile of cash, they are doling it out to their wealthy execs or investing it in offshore operations to grab greedily at even more cash. As opposed to investing in local communities, technology, new products, and training - things that will keep us moving ahead, into the future
From today's business news: Russell 2000 and the S&P MidCap 400 both notched all-time highs, while the Russell 3000 -- which encompasses about 98% of all U.S. market capitalization -- touched a five-year high.
If the Chinese actually do DIVEST (diversifiying is not the same as Divesting) and not just threaten to (major Divesting hasn't happened yet so don't get to far ahead of yourself) then we will initiate tariffs as retribution and the cycle will continue and unit both of economies are brought down which brings up my original concern and just reaffirms it. Since 2/3rds of our economy is consumer driven (retail and NOT manufacturing) and a huge portion of those retail goods are made in China, if our economy dumps it will significantly hurt China's economy. If China stops buying our bonds if will cause our long term interest to skyrocket overnight and contribute to our overall economy and the housing going into downward spiral.
No offense but you suffer from are the worse case of "DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO" I have ever seen.
Last edited by johnsocal; Apr 4, 2006 at 06:54 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 2,947
From: Springfield,OH. U.S.A.
Re: Do you think a rise of protectionism would be good for GM and the US economy.
Here's what "that" author has to say about some solutions to successful globalization.
me:..(Level the fields..)
Globalization, can't be allowed to be an Economic only driven force, or the price will be too high. Remember, we only work, in the first place, to enhance our quality of life, period. It makes it hard to enjoy, if we know others are suffering for our ejoyment. We can no longer stay oblivious to our Global inequalities in the name of profit.
If we are truly serious about fighting terrorism, this is where it must really begin, ending the discontent.
PS: How is it that our schools are always on the edge of bankruptcy, while money floods into funds for the "War"???
Who stands to gain? from a free trade, democratic Iraq..?
First, an inclusive political process must be set up to investigate and consider the impact of economic globalization. This should take the form of an international independant commission, transparent, open, and involving all major stockholders: representatives of the South as well as the North, members of communities who are affected as well as those who are beneficiaries, the poor as well as the rich.
What are the issues to address?
*What is the impact of trade liberization on the poorest members of the global society?
*What is the cost of economic growth on the Environment?
*What price are we paying for Big-Buisness influencing the rules of the Game on the quality of the air we breathe, and the food we eat?
*What is the justification for allowing the North(or East) to protect key industries, such as agriculture and textilles, while the South(or West) is told to open ALL its markets?
Much of the research on the impact is confined to the aggregate economic data that tell us little if anything about impact on particular groups; figures of rising GDP tell us nothing about WHO gains and WHO loses. And there is at present No Forum where these issues can be rigorously addressed and examined.
For if the status quo, where trade interests have been given the primacy, is maintained, if the economic is allowed to dominate, and if we never reconnect the social with the economic, we will exacerbate divides and perpetuate a system in which the "rules" of the game all too often serve the interests of Big-Buisness before people, and profit before social or environmental justice.
Ofcourse we must be careful that the North(1st worlds) should not use this new organization as a form of "protectionism". Assistance must be provided by developed world(corporations) to help its developing partners bear the costs associated with meeting "better" global regulation.
A world in which people have no access to justice is one in which discontent will continue to fester. So my final recommendation is to ensure that the perpetrators of corporate crimes shall be taken to account, wherever they are, and that their victoms will have redress, whomever they are. This means to commiting both to legislative reforms that will ensure that the corporate veil can be lifted and parent companies can be held responsible(as the name implies) for the actions of their subsidiaries, and to the establisment of a global legal aid fund so that workers and communities everywhere can be allowed access to justice.
It's a tall order, perhaps, my plan for the world- but not inconceivable. For now more than ever it is clear that this divided world, of injustice, inequality, and power asymmetries, is unatainable. The events of Sept.11, 2001, have shown us all too clearly that we do NOT and can NOT live in isolation. We are inexorably linked, standing as global citizens side by side. And to allow the exclusion of groups of people is to invite peril. It cannot be that the only issues upon which we as a world unite are: terrorism and trade.
We must commit to a global coalition to deal with the issues of exclusion too.
What are the issues to address?
*What is the impact of trade liberization on the poorest members of the global society?
*What is the cost of economic growth on the Environment?
*What price are we paying for Big-Buisness influencing the rules of the Game on the quality of the air we breathe, and the food we eat?
*What is the justification for allowing the North(or East) to protect key industries, such as agriculture and textilles, while the South(or West) is told to open ALL its markets?
Much of the research on the impact is confined to the aggregate economic data that tell us little if anything about impact on particular groups; figures of rising GDP tell us nothing about WHO gains and WHO loses. And there is at present No Forum where these issues can be rigorously addressed and examined.
For if the status quo, where trade interests have been given the primacy, is maintained, if the economic is allowed to dominate, and if we never reconnect the social with the economic, we will exacerbate divides and perpetuate a system in which the "rules" of the game all too often serve the interests of Big-Buisness before people, and profit before social or environmental justice.
Ofcourse we must be careful that the North(1st worlds) should not use this new organization as a form of "protectionism". Assistance must be provided by developed world(corporations) to help its developing partners bear the costs associated with meeting "better" global regulation.
A world in which people have no access to justice is one in which discontent will continue to fester. So my final recommendation is to ensure that the perpetrators of corporate crimes shall be taken to account, wherever they are, and that their victoms will have redress, whomever they are. This means to commiting both to legislative reforms that will ensure that the corporate veil can be lifted and parent companies can be held responsible(as the name implies) for the actions of their subsidiaries, and to the establisment of a global legal aid fund so that workers and communities everywhere can be allowed access to justice.
It's a tall order, perhaps, my plan for the world- but not inconceivable. For now more than ever it is clear that this divided world, of injustice, inequality, and power asymmetries, is unatainable. The events of Sept.11, 2001, have shown us all too clearly that we do NOT and can NOT live in isolation. We are inexorably linked, standing as global citizens side by side. And to allow the exclusion of groups of people is to invite peril. It cannot be that the only issues upon which we as a world unite are: terrorism and trade.
We must commit to a global coalition to deal with the issues of exclusion too.
me:..(Level the fields..)
Globalization, can't be allowed to be an Economic only driven force, or the price will be too high. Remember, we only work, in the first place, to enhance our quality of life, period. It makes it hard to enjoy, if we know others are suffering for our ejoyment. We can no longer stay oblivious to our Global inequalities in the name of profit.
If we are truly serious about fighting terrorism, this is where it must really begin, ending the discontent.
PS: How is it that our schools are always on the edge of bankruptcy, while money floods into funds for the "War"???
Who stands to gain? from a free trade, democratic Iraq..?
Last edited by 90rocz; Apr 4, 2006 at 03:30 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,808
From: FL/MI
Re: Do you think a rise of protectionism would be good for GM and the US economy.
This isn't a political forum, it's about cars and folks interest in them. There's a "So what?" attitude in this country, regarding the de-industrialization that's very much hapenning. The same attitude pervades both political parties.
It concerns me that some fundamental infrastructures apparently don't seem to matter in the great scheme some envision.
Technology is inexpensive when compared to people < read as labor expense >.
Global? Some cultures won't sell out their cultural values for a cheaper widescreen, car, etc. No editorial meant, it's just the facts.
I prefer the American auto industry to survive. There's real people expense involved with the US auto industries' demise, and I don't think Walmart, McDonald's or the plumber's union can absorb the void which will be left.
I'd like to see the middle class survive in the country as well. I believe manufacturing has much to do with that being possible. I'm hoping all the "costs" are being at least considered when large portions of out economy are in danger. Free trade should be fair.
I'm a capitalist, but I don't think that entails having an all for profit, end justified by the means mindset. Don't sell rope to those who seek to hang you, or take advantage of people simply because it's profitable.
It concerns me that some fundamental infrastructures apparently don't seem to matter in the great scheme some envision.
Technology is inexpensive when compared to people < read as labor expense >.
Global? Some cultures won't sell out their cultural values for a cheaper widescreen, car, etc. No editorial meant, it's just the facts.
I prefer the American auto industry to survive. There's real people expense involved with the US auto industries' demise, and I don't think Walmart, McDonald's or the plumber's union can absorb the void which will be left.
I'd like to see the middle class survive in the country as well. I believe manufacturing has much to do with that being possible. I'm hoping all the "costs" are being at least considered when large portions of out economy are in danger. Free trade should be fair.
I'm a capitalist, but I don't think that entails having an all for profit, end justified by the means mindset. Don't sell rope to those who seek to hang you, or take advantage of people simply because it's profitable.
Last edited by 1fastdog; Apr 4, 2006 at 03:45 PM.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 1,911
From: Southern California (SoCal)
Re: Do you think a rise of protectionism would be good for GM and the US economy.
In the 1950’s GM accounted for 20% of the GDP of the US while today it only accounts for 1% (if that). Im not saying 1% isnt a big deal but its nowhere near as big as the 20% in the 1950's.
In regards to US/China trade:
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4602126.stm
In regards to US/China trade:
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4602126.stm
China's biggest trading partner in 2005 was the European Union, with bilateral trade rising by 22.6% to $217.3bn during the year.
The US was China's second-biggest trading partner, at $211.6bn, followed by Japan at $184.4bn.
"These are unprecedented surplus volumes, reflecting the structural changes of China becoming the factory of the world," said Dong Tao, an economist at Credit Suisse First Boston in Hong Kong.
However, separate trade figures for December suggested that the rate of China's export growth was beginning to soften.
Exports during the month jumped by 18.2%, but imports rose by a faster 22.2%, giving a trade surplus of $11bn in December - slightly down from the $11.1bn seen at the same time last year.
Analysts have predicted that China's export growth in 2006 could drop by as much as 20%, as demand for cheap Chinese goods in the US cools and the yuan rises further.
The US was China's second-biggest trading partner, at $211.6bn, followed by Japan at $184.4bn.
"These are unprecedented surplus volumes, reflecting the structural changes of China becoming the factory of the world," said Dong Tao, an economist at Credit Suisse First Boston in Hong Kong.
However, separate trade figures for December suggested that the rate of China's export growth was beginning to soften.
Exports during the month jumped by 18.2%, but imports rose by a faster 22.2%, giving a trade surplus of $11bn in December - slightly down from the $11.1bn seen at the same time last year.
Analysts have predicted that China's export growth in 2006 could drop by as much as 20%, as demand for cheap Chinese goods in the US cools and the yuan rises further.
Last edited by johnsocal; Apr 4, 2006 at 05:43 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,808
From: FL/MI
Re: Do you think a rise of protectionism would be good for GM and the US economy.
Originally Posted by johnsocal
In the 1950’s GM accounted for 20% of the GDP of the US while today it only accounts for 1% (if that). Im not saying 1% isnt a big deal but its nowhere near as big as the 20% in the 1950's.
It would be a big deal for anyone that loses their job, their pension, their nest egg, or their business.
I don't see this a being protectionist or Globalist. Not on any absolute basis. I also believe some folks should get a grip and be willing to tighten their belt and home in on reality. I just shudder when the easy or "smart" reality is moving operations where cheap labor is the sole driving force.
I insist that American built vehicles have always offered the best performance value for enthusiasts. Especially middle income enthusiasts.
In no uncertain terms, the middle class enthusiast is blessed by American manufacturers in a much superior fashion, without contest, than by anything that has been offered by the far east or europe. If that truth becomes "unhinged" then much of my personal zeal is dashed.
This is coming from a fellow that has owned Ferrari, driven most of what's considered "fast" by the elitist press, and truly believes the "home teams" have the real Mojo when it come to heart pounding, wood inspiring, cars.
The non-domestics do not deliver,.
Last edited by 1fastdog; Apr 4, 2006 at 07:10 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,139
From: Commerce, mi, USA
Re: Do you think a rise of protectionism would be good for GM and the US economy.
I insist that American built vehicles have always offered the best performance value for enthusiasts. Especially middle income enthusiasts.
In no uncertain terms, the middle class enthusiast is blessed by American manufacturers in a much superior fashion, without contest, than by anything that has been offered by the far east or europe. If that truth becomes "unhinged" then much of my personal zeal is dashed.
This is coming from a fellow that has owned Ferrari, driven most of what's considered "fast" by the elitist press, and truly believes the "home teams" have the real Mojo when it come to heart pounding, wood inspiring, cars.
The non-domestics do not deliver,.
In no uncertain terms, the middle class enthusiast is blessed by American manufacturers in a much superior fashion, without contest, than by anything that has been offered by the far east or europe. If that truth becomes "unhinged" then much of my personal zeal is dashed.
This is coming from a fellow that has owned Ferrari, driven most of what's considered "fast" by the elitist press, and truly believes the "home teams" have the real Mojo when it come to heart pounding, wood inspiring, cars.
The non-domestics do not deliver,.
